What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5405235 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Co.Real Estate Ltd As The Agent For Hahm And Kim Family Trust

How much money was awarded in case 5405235?

Compensation: Failure to maintain pr…: $6,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of amenity/quiet…: $7,571.43 awarded to tenant; Power/Outgoings: $289.01 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $563.24 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Dishwasher: $354.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5405235?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5405235?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13950236-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5405235 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Co.Real Estate Ltd As The Agent For Hahm And Kim Family Trust

How much money was awarded in case 5405235?

Compensation: Failure to maintain pr…: $6,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of amenity/quiet…: $7,571.43 awarded to tenant; Power/Outgoings: $289.01 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $563.24 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Dishwasher: $354.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5405235?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5405235?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13950236-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

231 Postman Road, Dairy Flat, Dairy Flat 0794 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5405235 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5405235 — net $9,964.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 09 January 2025	$800.00		Rent arrears to 09 January 2025
Power/outgoings	$289.01		Power/outgoings
Lock/key replacement	$563.24		Lock/key replacement
Replace furnishings: Dishwasher	$354.50		Replace furnishings: Dishwasher
Insurance excess	$1,600.00		Insurance excess
Compensation: Loss of amenity/quiet enjoyment		$7,571.43	Loss of amenity/quiet enjoyment
Compensation: Failure to maintain premises		$6,000.00	Failure to maintain premises
Total award	$3,606.75	$13,571.43
Net award		$9,964.68
Bond		$3,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$9,964.68

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5405235 — net $9,964.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 09 January 2025	$800.00		Rent arrears to 09 January 2025
Power/outgoings	$289.01		Power/outgoings
Lock/key replacement	$563.24		Lock/key replacement
Replace furnishings: Dishwasher	$354.50		Replace furnishings: Dishwasher
Insurance excess	$1,600.00		Insurance excess
Compensation: Loss of amenity/quiet enjoyment		$7,571.43	Loss of amenity/quiet enjoyment
Compensation: Failure to maintain premises		$6,000.00	Failure to maintain premises
Total award	$3,606.75	$13,571.43
Net award		$9,964.68
Bond		$3,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$9,964.68

Order

[The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Co.Real Estate Ltd As The Agent For Hahm And Kim Family Trust (Trustees: Young Hahm & Inja Kim) and Hollie Joss Property Management Limited Hollie Joss must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $9,964.68 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (3353103-003) immediately to [The tenant/s] tenant/s].

Reasons

Introduction

The in-person hearing was held on 09 July 2026.
The current property manager is Ms Aspey. The previous property manager is Ms Joss, who attended remotely. The tenant is Mr Dent.
Ms Dent appeared as Mr Dent’s approved representative under the Case Conference Order dated 10 March 2026 (“the Order”). The Order also joined the owners, being the trustees of the trust, and the previous property management company as parties.
The tenancy began on 26 May 2021 and terminated on 9 January 2025. The written tenancy agreement describes the tenancy address as “231 Postman Road (House and garden only) Dairy Flat Auckland”. The rent was $800 per week. The agreement records a bond amount of $3,600, although the bond actually lodged was $3,200.
At the hearing, the landlord confirmed the principal monetary claims as follows: a. rent arrears of $800; b. replacement locks and keys of $563.24; c. replacement dishwasher of $709; d. two insurance excesses totalling $2,500 for flooring and ceiling remedial work; and e. power/outgoings, which Ms Aspey confirmed were still pursued, although there was a discrepancy between the figure in the application and the figure submitted at the hearing.
Mr Dent’s cross-application includes a substantial number of allegations. These include allegations about the landlord’s alleged failure to maintain the premises, including complaints about the roof, ceiling, insulation, windows, fireplace, sliding door, floors, power points, driveway, shower, taps, septic system, deck, and other matters. Some of those allegations are serious because they concern health, safety, compliance, loss of use, and the tenant’s claimed entitlement to compensation over a long period. The cross-application also includes allegations about the use of another dwelling on the land, the presence of another occupant, loss of quiet enjoyment, and failure to provide the land or amenity Mr Dent says was promised.
The hearing was lengthy because the tenancy lasted nearly four years, the property was rural, there was another occupier on the same land, and the parties filed a substantial volume of documentary material. Some of that material was duplicated. Where the same invoice, ledger entry, photograph, inspection report, or other document appeared more than once, I have treated it as one item of evidence only.
I also note at the outset that part of this tenancy occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Auckland was subject to significant COVID-19 restrictions during 2021, including Alert Level 4 from 17 August 2021 and an extended period at Alert Level 3 after that. I have taken that context into account when considering whether any delay in maintenance was unreasonable. COVID-19 restrictions may have affected access to the premises, the availability of tradespeople, and the timing of non-urgent work. However, COVID-19 is not a complete answer to a maintenance claim. It is a contextual factor only, and each alleged maintenance breach must still be assessed by reference to the evidence of notice, response, delay, and loss.
The issues I must determine are: a. whether the landlord has proved the rent arrears, outgoings, locks, dishwasher, and insurance excess claims; b. whether the tenant has proved breaches by the landlord relating to quiet enjoyment, use of the property, repair and maintenance, heating, insulation, Healthy Homes matters, utilities, or loss of amenity; c. what compensation, rent abatement, exemplary damages, or other remedy, if any, should follow; and d. how the bond should be distributed after the parties’ respective claims are determined. Standard of proof
The applicant must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities; i.e., more probable than not.
In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”.
This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: [102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.
Section 97(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: ... the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law.
It follows that, although the Tribunal is not bound by the usual rules of evidence when admitting evidence, where the allegation is serious, it is likely to require stronger evidence before finding the claim proved on the balance of probabilities
During the hearing, I discussed the burden of proof with the parties. I made it clear that failure to identify the issues precisely could result in a finding that the claims were not proved on the balance of probabilities.
In assessing delay, I have also taken into account events that may have affected the landlord’s ability to respond. These include COVID-19 restrictions during the tenancy, later Auckland storm and flood events, insurance processes, council consent requirements, rural-property conditions, access issues, and trades availability. Those matters do not displace the landlord’s maintenance obligations. They are relevant only to whether the landlord’s response was reasonable in the particular circumstances.
That exercise was necessary because the tenancy lasted for nearly four years, the property was rural, there were many alleged defects, and the documentary material was extensive. It would not be sufficient to decide the maintenance claim by accepting broad descriptions such as “the house was not maintained” or “nothing was fixed”. I must make findings about particular defects, particular periods, and particular landlord responses.
I also indicated during the hearing that, when making findings about these matters, I would place particular weight on objective contemporaneous evidence. That includes emails or other written notifications from the tenant to the landlord or property manager, regular inspection reports, work orders, trades invoices, compliance reports, photographs, and correspondence created at or near the time of the events. The parties’ oral evidence was also considered, but where there is a dispute about timing, notification, or whether a repair was completed, contemporaneous written records are generally more reliable than recollections given after a long tenancy and after the relationship had broken down. On this issue, I note that it is regrettable that Mr Dent brought his claims at the end of the tenancy, rather than raising them with the Tribunal when the matters could not be resolved between the parties as soon as reasonably practicable. There was undoubtedly delay on Mr Dent’s part.
This is especially important where some of the tenant’s complaints were said to have been notified verbally, by telephone, or by text message to Ms Joss. Ms Joss gave evidence that some text records were no longer available. Mr Dent and Ms Dent also referred to earlier verbal conversations and text messages which were not always supported by surviving records. I do not disregard that evidence merely because it was oral. However, where the tenant asks me to find that the landlord failed to act for months or years after being notified of a defect, I must be satisfied by evidence that reliably establishes the notification, the time period, and the landlord’s response or lack of response.
For that reason, in assessing the maintenance aspect of the tenant’s cross- application, I have focused on the objective evidence available in the file, including the tenant’s written communications, the landlord’s routine inspection reports, and the invoices and other maintenance documents filed by the landlord. Those documents are not conclusive, but they provide the most reliable framework for determining what was reported, what was observed, what work was instructed, and when repairs or replacements occurred.
I will determine the landlord’s application first, followed by the tenant’s cross- application. The landlord’s application

How much is owed for rent and power/outgoings?

The landlord claims rent arrears of $800.
Ms Aspey says the tenancy commenced on 26 May 2021. Rent was $800 per week. She relies on the rent summary. It records that rent was paid to 2 January 2025, while the tenancy was treated as ending on 9 January 2025. On that basis, the landlord says one further week of rent remained unpaid.
Ms Joss also gave evidence about the end of the tenancy. She says the tenant gave written notice to end the tenancy, and the property management system calculated the final rent position by reference to the required notice period. Her evidence was that the system calculated the rent owing to the tenancy end date and produced the outstanding balance.
Ms Dent, for Mr Dent, disputed the arrears claim. She says Mr Dent vacated earlier and understood that he should not be liable for the further week of rent claimed. She referred to the vacate notice and the tenant’s position that the landlord either accepted, or should have accepted, a shorter period. She also questioned the accuracy of the final account because of broader concerns about utility charges and the final tenancy statement.
I accept the landlord’s rent summary as reliable evidence of the rent position. The rent summary records a total rent due of $151,428.56, total rent paid of $150,628.56, and closing arrears of $800 to 9 January 2025. The landlord’s ledger is consistent with that amount.
I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that rent of $800 remained owing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is therefore proved in the amount of $800.
The landlord also claimed power/outgoings of $289.01.
At the hearing, I asked Ms Aspey whether the power/outgoings claim was still pursued. Ms Aspey said she wished the claim to remain if possible. She said the landlord’s current records showed an outstanding balance of $293.07, but accepted that the original application had claimed $289.01. I indicated that it was appropriate to proceed on the figure in the application, because that was the amount Mr Dent had been notified of.
I noted that Mr Dent did not dispute that amount. I therefore recorded that the power/outgoings claim was agreed at $289.01.
By consent, the landlord’s claim for power/outgoings is $289.01.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”). Replacement locks and keys
The landlord claims $563.24 for replacing the locks and keys at the end of the tenancy.
Ms Joss says Mr Dent did not return the keys when the tenancy ended. She arranged for a locksmith to change the locks and secure the property. Ms Joss relies on the locksmith invoice and the tenant ledger. The ledger records a charge dated 28 February 2025 for $563.24, described as “General Maintenance – Change all locks and secure house”.
Mr Dent says he returned the keys by placing them in the letterbox at the property. His position is that the landlord did not need to replace the locks because the keys had been left for collection.
Ms Joss disputed that the keys were returned. Her evidence was that the keys were not received by the property manager. She said that, because the keys were not returned, she had to arrange for the locks to be changed.
I prefer Ms Joss’ evidence on this issue. The responsibility was on Mr Dent, as tenant, to return the keys to the landlord or property manager at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the Act. Leaving keys in a letterbox, without confirmation that the landlord or property manager had received them, was not a secure or reliable method of return. It also left open the possibility that the keys could be removed by someone else or otherwise not come back into the landlord’s possession.
I accept that Ms Joss did not receive the keys. In those circumstances, it was reasonable for her to change the locks and secure the property. Ms Joss was entitled to ensure that the owners and any future occupiers were not exposed to the risk of unreturned keys remaining in circulation.
I also accept the amount claimed. The charge of $563.24 is supported by a piece of documentary evidence and is consistent with the ledger entry for the work. I have treated the ledger entry and the underlying locksmith invoice as evidence of the same loss, not as separate claims.
The landlord’s claim for replacement locks and keys is allowed in the amount of $563.24. Replacement of dishwasher
The landlord claims $709 for replacement of the dishwasher.
The landlord’s position is that a new dishwasher was supplied at the start of the tenancy. At the final inspection, the dishwasher in the property was not the same dishwasher. The landlord says it was an older and different appliance. The landlord therefore claims the cost of replacement.
Mr Dent’s evidence was that the original dishwasher had functional problems. Rather than requiring the landlord to repair or replace it, he replaced it with another dishwasher of his own.
I accept that Mr Dent may have considered the dishwasher was not functioning properly. However, he had a responsibility to notify the property manager of the problem and give the property manager an opportunity to inspect, repair, or replace the appliance. There is insufficient evidence that the landlord was made aware of the dishwasher issue before Mr Dent replaced it.
A tenant is not entitled to unilaterally remove and replace a landlord’s chattel without the landlord’s knowledge or agreement. If an appliance supplied with the tenancy fails, the proper course is to notify the landlord and allow the landlord to deal with it. By replacing the dishwasher himself, Mr Dent created uncertainty about what happened to the original dishwasher and whether the replacement was equivalent or necessary.
I accept Ms Aspey’s evidence that the dishwasher present at the end of the tenancy was not shown to be the same or equivalent to the dishwasher supplied at the start of the tenancy. I am therefore satisfied that the landlord has proved loss.
The landlord claims the full replacement cost of $709. I do not allow the full amount. The dishwasher was not new at the end of the tenancy. It had been supplied at the start of a tenancy that lasted almost four years. The landlord is entitled to compensation for loss, but not to be placed in a better position than if the tenancy breach had not occurred. I must therefore allow for depreciation and betterment.
I reduce the claim by 50%. That reduction comprises 40% for depreciation, reflecting the age and use of the appliance over the tenancy, and a further 10% for betterment, because allowing the full cost of a new dishwasher would overcompensate the landlord.
The allowed amount is therefore $709 x 50%=$354.50.
The landlord’s dishwasher claim is allowed in the reduced amount of $354.50.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord says the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Carpet staining; and b. rumpus room ceiling, floor and lining damage associated with Mr Dent installing and later removing a wall.
I am satisfied that this damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that Mr Dent has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord claims $2,500, being two insurance excesses of $1,250 each. The claims relate to stained carpet replacement and flooring/ceiling remedial work.
The first part of the claim concerns stained carpet. Mr Dent did not dispute liability for that amount. However, I am not satisfied on the evidence that all of the carpet was new at the start of the tenancy. I accept there was staining requiring remedial work, but any assessment of compensation must allow for the age and condition of the carpet and avoid betterment. The evidence referred to a quote for carpet replacement of $5,360.72. In the circumstances, I reduce the recoverable amount for this part of the excess to one week’s rent, namely $800.
The disputed part of the claim arises from Mr Dent installing and later removing a wall in the rumpus room. Ms Aspey’s position is that, when Mr Dent vacated the premises, there was damage to the ceiling and floor associated with the removal of that wall. Ms Aspey says the remedial work was dealt with through insurance, and that the landlord incurred an insurance excess.
Mr Dent did not dispute that remedial work was required after the wall was removed. His position was that the amount claimed was disproportionate. He submitted, in effect, that the landlord was receiving a betterment because the flooring and linings were aged, and the remedial works resulted in the landlord obtaining a substantially improved condition compared with what existed before. The issue is therefore not simply whether there was damage, but what amount is fair and reasonable to award.
I accept that the landlord has established some loss in relation to the ceiling and floor linings. I also accept, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Dent installed and later removed an internal wall during the tenancy, and that damage was left when the wall was removed. Mr Dent said he carried out remedial work himself. Ms Aspey’s position was that the remedial work was not satisfactory. Ms Aspey referred to photographs showing the work undertaken by Mr Dent. I accept that those photographs clearly show the remedial work was unsatisfactory.
There was a dispute about whether the landlord or property manager had consented to the alteration. Mr Dent’s position was that consent had been given. Ms Joss disputed that. She did not accept that Mr Dent had permission to install the wall in the way he did.
This was essentially a “he says, she says” dispute. Mr Dent was unable to produce any objective evidence showing that consent was requested or granted. There was no email, text message, written approval, inspection note, or other contemporaneous document confirming that the landlord or property manager consented to the alteration. Given the nature of the alteration, and the potential for damage to the premises, I would expect some objective record if consent had been properly sought and given.
On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that Mr Dent had consent to install the wall. In any event, even if there had been some informal discussion about the wall, Mr Dent remained responsible for ensuring that any alteration did not damage the premises and that the premises were properly reinstated at the end of the tenancy.
I therefore accept that Mr Dent is liable for a reasonable contribution toward the loss arising from the installation and removal of the wall.
I do not, however, allow the full insurance excesses claimed. The evidence indicates that the flooring and linings were aged. I also accept that the remedial work resulted in a degree of betterment to the landlord. Compensation should reflect Mr Dent’s responsibility for the damage, but should not require him to pay the full cost of replacing aged materials with new or substantially improved materials. The tenant’s responsibility is to put the premises back into the condition they should have been in, allowing for fair wear and tear and the age of the materials.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for insurance excesses is allowed as follows: a. stained carpet / flooring excess, not disputed, but reduced for age and betterment to one week’s rent: $800. b. ceiling, floor, and lining damage associated with the wall installation and removal, reduced for age and betterment: $800.
The total allowed for the insurance excess claim is $1,600.
I now turn to the tenant’s cross-application. Tenant’s cross-application Alleged misrepresentation, use of the land, Ms Peart’s occupation, and quiet enjoyment
Mr Dent’s first claim in the cross-application concerns the boundary of the property he says he rented. He says he believed he was renting the whole rural property, including the wider land, outbuildings, and areas used for animals. The property was referred to during the hearing as including about 10 acres, stables, and a garage or outbuilding. Mr Dent says he was misled into believing he would have the use of the whole block. Mr Dent’s submissions
Ms Dent, for Mr Dent, submitted that before the tenancy began Mr Dent understood the rent was to be $900 per week for the whole property. She said that meant the house, the four acres or wider land, and the outbuildings. She relied on the initial bond figure of $3,600 recorded in the tenancy agreement, which is consistent with four weeks’ rent at $900. She submitted that the rent was then reduced to $800 per week because Ms Peart was still on the property, and that Mr Dent understood that would be temporary.
Mr Dent’s evidence was that he had done painting work at the property before taking the tenancy. He said he discussed the land and the outbuildings with Ms Joss. His evidence was that he wanted the property because it could meet his needs, including having land for his cows and outbuildings that could be used by family. He said he was told the rent would be reduced while Ms Peart remained, but that she would be removed and he would then have use of the land.
Ms Dent also submitted that Mr Dent’s position was supported by the surrounding circumstances. She said the bond discrepancy was significant. The tenancy agreement recorded a bond of $3,600, but the bond actually paid and lodged was $3,200. She said that supported Mr Dent’s evidence that the original discussion was $900 for the whole property, later reduced to $800 because the landlord had not successfully removed Ms Peart.
Mr Dent and Ms Dent say the practical problem was that Ms Peart continued to live on the property, in a garage, sleepout, or outbuilding close to Mr Dent’s house. They say that dwelling was not a lawful residential dwelling. They say Ms Peart had stock and, according to Mr Dent, approximately 30 cats. Mr Dent says those animals came and went over the property and interfered with his ability to keep and exercise his two dogs, which were permitted under his tenancy agreement. He says he had to restrain his dogs to prevent them attacking the cats.
Ms Dent submitted that the problem was not simply that another person lived nearby. The real problem was that there was no clear physical boundary between the house and garden rented by Mr Dent and the land or buildings occupied by Ms Peart. She submitted that Ms Peart had a commercial agreement with a plan showing her area, but Mr Dent was not given an equivalent plan showing where his garden began and ended. She said the lack of fencing or boundary meant Mr Dent was effectively deprived of the full use and enjoyment of the outdoor area he reasonably expected to have.
Mr Dent says this affected his quiet enjoyment. He says he could not use the land in the way he expected, could not freely use the outdoor areas, could not use the outbuildings, and had ongoing issues caused by Ms Peart’s presence and animals. He says the landlord knew Ms Peart was living there unlawfully and failed to resolve the problem. Ms Joss’s submissions
Ms Joss denied misleading Mr Dent. Her evidence was that Ms Peart had previously lived in the main house but moved out before Mr Dent’s tenancy began. Ms Joss said Ms Peart then entered into a commercial agreement to lease relating to the land, stables, and garage. Ms Joss said that arrangement was already in place before Mr Dent’s residential tenancy began.
Ms Joss said Mr Dent’s tenancy was for the house and garden only. She said the agreed rent was $800 per week and that there was never any agreement that Mr Dent would have the 10 acres, the stables, the garage, or the other areas occupied by Ms Peart. Her evidence was that Mr Dent knew Ms Peart was present because he had been at the property doing painting work before the tenancy commenced.
Ms Aspey referred to the written tenancy agreement. The agreement records the tenancy address as “231 Postman Road (House and garden only) Dairy Flat Auckland”. It records the rent as $800 per week and the tenancy commencement date as 26 May 2021. It also records that two dogs were permitted.
Ms Joss’s position is that the words “house and garden only” are clear enough to show that Mr Dent did not rent the entire rural block. Ms Joss says the fact that Ms Peart was already present on the property makes it unlikely that Mr Dent could reasonably have believed he had exclusive possession of the whole block.
Ms Joss accepted, however, that Ms Peart’s residential occupation of the outbuilding or garage was problematic. Ms Joss also accepted that the outbuilding or garage was not lawful residential premises. Her evidence was that Ms Peart had a commercial agreement but was living there. Ms Joss said she attempted to remove Ms Peart by bringing proceedings in the Disputes Tribunal. Her evidence was that the attempt was unsuccessful because the agreement did not expressly prohibit Ms Peart from residing at the premises. My view
I am not satisfied that Mr Dent has proved he was misled into believing he was renting the entire block of land.
I accept that there may have been discussions about the wider property, the land, and the presence of Ms Peart. I also accept that the bond figure of $3,600 in the tenancy agreement is unusual because it is consistent with four weeks’ rent at $900, while the rent actually recorded and charged was $800 per week. But that is not enough, on its own, to prove that the landlord represented that Mr Dent would have the whole property.
The written tenancy agreement is important. It refers to “231 Postman Road (House and garden only) Dairy Flat Auckland”. Those words are inconsistent with an agreement to rent the entire rural property, including the 10 acres, stables, garage, and outbuildings.
I also take into account that Ms Peart was already occupying a nearby dwelling or outbuilding when Mr Dent entered into the tenancy. Mr Dent had been at the property before the tenancy began because he had carried out painting work there. I find it unlikely that Mr Dent could reasonably have believed he had exclusive possession of the whole property when Ms Peart’s occupation was visible and known at the outset.
I therefore do not accept the misrepresentation claim in the way Mr Dent advances it. I do not find that Ms Joss misled Mr Dent into believing he was renting the entire property.
That does not mean there was no breach by the landlord. The difficulty is that the agreement did not define the boundary of the “house and garden only”. Ms Peart had a commercial agreement with a plan or drawing. Mr Dent did not have an equivalent plan. His agreement referred to the “house and garden only”, but did not identify where the garden ended or how the boundary between the two occupations was to be managed.
The absence of a fence or clear boundary was significant. The landlord placed, or allowed, two separate occupiers on the same rural property. One was a residential tenant in the main house. The other was Ms Peart, who held a commercial agreement but was in fact living in a nearby outbuilding or garage. It is a fact, and I accept, that Ms Peart’s dwelling was not a lawful residential premises under the Act.
I also accept that Ms Peart’s presence, animals, and use of the land affected Mr Dent’s quiet enjoyment to some degree. However, this was not a conventional breach of quiet enjoyment, such as a neighbour making excessive noise or harassing Mr Dent. The established fact is that Mr Dent and Ms Peart were neighbours.
Mr Dent’s tenancy agreement permitted two dogs. On the evidence, Ms Peart had animals, including cats, and the absence of fencing meant animals and people could move through areas Mr Dent regarded as part of his home environment. The evidence was that Ms Peart’s animals, mainly cats, were an inconvenience rather than harassment.
Ms Joss submitted that Mr Dent knew Ms Peart was present from the beginning. I accept that. That reduces the seriousness of the inconvenience and is relevant to compensation. However, knowledge that another person is nearby is different from agreeing to an unclear and unmanaged shared occupation with no practical boundary, particularly where the other person was living in premises that were not lawful residential premises.
The tenancy lasted from 26 May 2021 until 9 January 2025, a little over three years and seven months. I have not been directed to clear contemporaneous evidence showing that Mr Dent raised, during the tenancy, a complaint that he had been promised the whole block or that Ms Peart’s presence amounted to a breach of that promise. If this had been raised as a fundamental issue from the start, I would have expected to see some email, text, inspection note, or other written record. The absence of such evidence reduces the weight I give to the claim that Mr Dent believed throughout the tenancy that he had been misled about the whole property.
I therefore make the following findings: a. Mr Dent has not proved that he was misled into renting the whole 10-acre property. b. Mr Dent has not proved that his tenancy included the stables, garage, outbuildings, or the whole rural block. c. The tenancy was for the house and garden only. d. The landlord failed to clearly define the boundary of the house and garden. e. Ms Peart was living in nearby premises which were not lawful residential premises. f. The lack of fencing or a clear boundary, together with Ms Peart’s ongoing occupation and animals, caused inconvenience to Mr Dent’s quiet enjoyment and loss of amenity. Compensation for loss of amenity / quiet enjoyment
I do not consider this issue should be treated as a market rent claim. It is better characterised as compensation for loss of amenity and inconvenience to quiet enjoyment. The most practical way to assess that compensation is by reference to a modest weekly rent abatement.
I would not award compensation on the basis that Mr Dent lost the whole 10- acre block, because I have found that he did not rent the whole block. I would also not award compensation for the entire tenancy at a high rate, because Mr Dent knew Ms Peart was present at the outset and I have not seen clear evidence that he complained about this issue during the tenancy.
However, compensation is warranted because the landlord was responsible for creating and continuing an unclear occupation arrangement, without fencing or a clear boundary, and with another person living nearby in premises that were not lawful residential premises. That affected the amenity of the house and garden that Mr Dent did rent.
I consider a modest weekly abatement is the fairest method. It recognises that Mr Dent had the use of the house, but that the amenity and quiet enjoyment of the surrounding garden area were reduced. It also avoids treating the claim as a reassessment of market rent.
In my view, compensation should be assessed as a percentage of rent for the period affected. Given the mitigating factors I have identified, including Mr Dent’s knowledge of Ms Peart’s presence, the absence of contemporaneous complaint, and the absence of evidence that Mr Dent was prohibited from accessing the remaining property, a weekly rent abatement of 5% is appropriate for this issue. At rent of $800 per week, that is $40 per week.
The total rent due over the tenancy was $151,428.56. 5% of that amount is $7,571.43. I award Mr Dent $7,571.43 for loss of amenity and inconvenience to his quiet enjoyment arising from the unclear boundary and Ms Peart’s occupation. Failure to maintain the premises
At the end of the hearing I gave the parties an opportunity to file further material about the maintenance issues. I did so because the hearing had covered many alleged defects over a long tenancy, and I considered it necessary to identify the issues, notice dates, repair dates, landlord response, and any proven loss with more precision.
Ms Dent filed a maintenance table for Mr Dent. Ms Aspey filed a reply for the landlord. I thank both parties for their efforts to make my task as easy as possible. Ms Dent’s table was helpful because it identified the alleged defects, the earliest awareness dates relied on, and the remedy dates said to be supported by the documents. The landlord’s response was also helpful because it identified the landlord’s position and explained the repair response.
I stress again that the burden of proof remains on Mr Dent. It is for Mr Dent to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that there was a defect, that the landlord was notified or otherwise knew of it, that the landlord failed to remedy it within a reasonable time, and that Mr Dent suffered loss or reduced amenity as a result.
It is not enough to show that maintenance was required. A maintenance issue may be identified and may even remain unresolved for a time, but compensation does not automatically follow. I must still consider whether the delay was unreasonable, whether the landlord took reasonable steps, whether access or trades availability affected timing, whether the issue was caused or worsened by external events, and whether any compensable loss was proved.
This is especially important because this was a long tenancy. The tenancy began on 26 May 2021 and ended on 9 January 2025, a period of approximately three years and seven months. The maintenance claims were brought after the tenancy ended. That does not prevent me from considering them, but it means I must be careful about broad recollections and give particular weight to objective evidence, including emails, inspection reports, invoices, compliance reports and work orders Leaking roof, ceiling damage, and leaking windows
I accept that the roof and ceiling leak issue is proved. Ms Dent’s post-hearing table identifies the earliest relevant notice as 31 January 2023, when there was a ceiling issue after a storm. The table records the ceiling as fragile and bowed, with the tenant saying a finger could go through it. Further records refer to roof repair follow-up on 14 March 2023, a quote for repairs where water came through the ceiling on 19 April 2023, a complaint of leaking roof on 21 May 2023, ceiling removal on 14 June 2023, and an email on 26 June 2023 referring to four places where rain was coming in.
The 4 August 2023 inspection recorded that the roof leak was waiting on Diamond Roofing, that ceiling had been removed, and that holes had been located.
The invoice from Diamond Roofing Ltd, invoice number 3396, dated 27 March 2023, records work to replace guttering with a larger 125 x 125 box gutter.
The invoice from Diamond Roofing Ltd, invoice number 3729, dated 29 August 2023, records work to “flashed over flat roof as per quote” for $1,614.60.
The invoice from Oddjob Group Limited, invoice number INV-2254, dated 25 October 2023, records “install new insulation and plasterboard”, “install new scotia”, and “plaster and paint ceiling and walls” for $3,582.25.
On those dates, the roof and ceiling issue was present from at least 31 January 2023 until the internal reinstatement work invoiced on 25 October 2023. That is just under nine months. The roof component appears to have been addressed by the Diamond Roofing invoice on 29 August 2023, about seven months after the first identified storm-related report. The internal ceiling reinstatement was completed about two months later.
Ms Aspey submitted that this issue arose during the Auckland storm and flood events, including the Auckland Anniversary flooding and Cyclone Gabrielle period. She also said the affected area was a passageway or corridor from the living area to the rear part of the house, not the dining room as described by the tenant. She submitted that insurance processes, roofers’ availability, and trade shortages after the storm events affected the time taken to complete the work.
I accept Ms Aspey’s explanation in part. The timing is consistent with the major Auckland storm and flooding period in early 2023. I accept that landlords and tradespeople faced real delays at that time, especially for roofing and insurance-related repairs. I do not find that the landlord ignored the issue. The landlord arranged investigation, roof work, ceiling removal, and later reinstatement.
However, I am satisfied that Mr Dent suffered a real loss of amenity and inconvenience. Even allowing for storm events, insurance processes, and trade availability, living with water ingress, removed ceiling areas, holes, draughts, and later reinstatement work for a period approaching nine months materially reduced the amenity of the premises. I find that the landlord did not fully discharge the maintenance obligation in relation to the roof and ceiling issue, although the seriousness of the breach is mitigated by the storm context and the repair steps taken. The landlord could and should have offered compensation at the time.
I also accept that window issues were proved. The tenant’s table refers to an email on 21 May 2023 complaining of breeze through closed windows, and a later communication on 30 August 2023 about the status of the window repair job.
There had been earlier window-related invoices from Healthy Homes New Zealand: invoice number INV-07400-9-MT, dated 7 October 2022, for a deposit for window friction stay and latch replacement; and invoice number INV-07400- 23-MT, dated 24 July 2023, for the balance of those window friction stay and latch works.
Later invoices show more substantial window work. The Window Doctor Limited, invoice number INV-2434, dated 13 May 2024, records removal of one opening window sash, replacement of broken glass, rebuilding of the frame, installation of friction stays, and reinstallation of the sash.
The Window Doctor Limited, invoice number INV-2476, dated 17 June 2024, records removal of 21 opening window sashes, replacement of worn friction stays, and replacement of backing rubbers, for $4,991.00.
Ms Aspey submitted that Mr Dent reported some draughty windows, not all windows, and that the landlord arranged trades to remedy the problem. She also said more than $5,000 was spent on window work. I accept that substantial money was spent and that the landlord did arrange work.
However, on the objective evidence, the tenant had raised draughty or leaking windows by 21 May 2023, and the major window sash and rubber work was not completed until 17 June 2024. That is about 13 months. I accept there was some earlier window work, but I find that the landlord did not remedy the draught and window issue within a reasonable time. I treat this as contributing to the overall loss of amenity and causing inconvenience to Mr Dent. Asbestos
Mr Dent raised concern about asbestos from falling ceiling material. I do not accept that this claim is proved.
There is evidence of ceiling damage and ceiling removal. There is not, however, objective evidence proving asbestos was present. I was not provided with an asbestos test result, expert report, council notice, asbestos remediation invoice, or other reliable evidence establishing that Mr Dent was exposed to asbestos.
I accept that falling ceiling material would have caused concern. But concern about asbestos is not proof of asbestos. This part of the claim is dismissed. Fireplace / log burner
Mr Dent says the fireplace was not functional and that he was left without proper heating for a lengthy period. The tenant’s table refers to an August 2021 quote relating to an old log burner with obsolete parts. It also records communications in June 2022, July 2022, and September 2022 about the log burner, and records that a quote to remove and replace the old fire was obtained on 14 July 2022.
The landlord arranged a chimney sweep and safety inspection. The invoice from Smoky Chimney Sweeps and Repairs Ltd, invoice number HJ150621, dated 15 June 2021, records one chimney sweep and safety inspection. It notes: “Needs new flue, bricks and airbar. Quote to follow.” It does not state that the log burner was unusable.
The replacement log burner was later installed. The invoice from North City Heating, invoice number 17819, dated 20 October 2022, records removal of the old fire and flue and installation of a new Woodsman Tasman MkII Freestanding Woodfire with flue kit and screen. The invoice includes council consent and paperwork and totals $4,560.00.
Ms Aspey submitted that the landlord understood the log burner was functional, that the chimney sweep did not state it was unusable, and that replacement required consideration of whether a heat pump or log burner was the better option, preparation of plans, council consent, ordering, and trades availability. She also relied on the Healthy Homes assessment, which recorded a compliant heating position.
I also take into account that this issue arose during a period affected by COVID-19 restrictions. That context is relevant to the time taken to obtain quotes, arrange access, obtain council consent, order replacement heating, and arrange trades.
I am not satisfied that Mr Dent has proved the fireplace was unusable for the entire period alleged. However, I accept that the log burner required significant work from early in the tenancy. The objective evidence shows that by 15 June 2021 it needed a new flue, bricks, and airbar. Replacement was not invoiced until 20 October 2022, about 16 months later.
Although there was a 16-month delay, Mr Dent has not proved that the fireplace was unusable during that period. Accordingly, this part of the claim is dismissed. Ranch slider door
The ranch slider issue is proved. The 4 August 2023 inspection recorded that the ranch slider had come off its runners. Mr Dent’s evidence was that it was taped or otherwise secured because it was unsafe.
The repair evidence includes two relevant invoices. The first is from iGlaze Limited, invoice number INV-2404, dated 2 March 2023, for replacement of a ranch slider lock. That invoice predates the August 2023 inspection issue and appears to relate to the lock rather than the later runner problem.
The second is from Rodney Window Maintenance Ltd trading as Exceed - we fix windows & doors, invoice number RWM-7084, dated 23 January 2024, for travel, labour, and “Std deluxe Cut Down short tab with Ryvelin roller”. I accept the January 2024 invoice is the better evidence of the remedy for the slider runner issue.
On those dates, the issue was known by 4 August 2023 and was not remedied until about 23 January 2024. That is approximately five and a half months.
A ranch slider off its runners is not simply cosmetic. It affects safety, security, weather-tightness, and normal use of the premises. I accept that the landlord eventually arranged repair. But I find the delay was unreasonable. I allow this as part of the overall maintenance compensation. Rotten floors in the master bedroom, laundry, and upper floor bathroom
Mr Dent says there were rotten floors in the master bedroom, laundry, and upper floor bathroom. The difficulty is proof of timing, notice, and loss.
The objective record most directly relied on is the final inspection, which records floor rotting in the cupboard under the hot water cylinder. It also records that Mr Dent said he had reported this and that it had been repaired, but that the landlord had no record of it being reported or repaired. The final inspection recorded that the area looked dry that day.
Mr Dent also relied on plumbing or hot water cylinder works. The invoice from Alpha Plumbing Ltd, invoice number INV-18754, dated 20 April 2024, records plumbing work including capping off supply to the dishwasher, checking the hot water cylinder, and supplying and installing a new thermostat. That invoice proves hot water cylinder work occurred, but it does not prove that there were rotten floors in the master bedroom, laundry, and upper floor bathroom for the period alleged, or that the landlord failed to act after notice.
I am not satisfied that this claim is proved. There is insufficient objective evidence of when the alleged floor rot arose, when it was notified, what the landlord failed to do, and what loss resulted. This part of the claim is dismissed. Power plugs / exposed wiring
Mr Dent raised concern about exposed wiring or defective power points in the lounge and smaller bedroom. The tenant’s table refers to an electrical safety certificate for two power points dated 23 April 2024, and an invoice dated 14 June 2024 for replacement of two power points. The supplier and invoice number for that latter item were not clearly identified in the material before me.
Exposed wiring is potentially serious. However, the objective evidence does not establish when this issue was first reported to the landlord, how long it remained unrepaired, or that the landlord failed to act within a reasonable time after notice.
The evidence proves that electrical work was required and carried out. It does not prove a compensable breach over the period alleged. I therefore do not make a separate award for this item. This part of the claim is dismissed. Large pothole in the driveway
Mr Dent says there was a pothole in the driveway. This was raised at the hearing as a safety and access issue.
I accept that rural gravel driveways can develop potholes and require maintenance. However, I was not directed to sufficient objective evidence identifying the pothole, its size, its precise location, the date it was first notified, the duration of the issue, or any actual loss caused by it.
General inconvenience associated with a rural driveway is not enough to establish a compensable breach. This part of the claim is dismissed. Shower door incorrectly installed
Mr Dent says the shower door was incorrectly installed. The objective evidence is mixed.
The 4 August 2023 inspection recorded that the tenant fell into the shower door and accidentally broke it, and that the tenant said he had another door to install. Later, on 16 January 2024, the tenant disputed that he had fallen into the door and said the door fell off when opening. On 27 March 2024, the agent referred to the shower door installer getting in touch with the tenant.
There is an invoice from Alpha Plumbing Ltd, invoice number INV-18495, dated 22 February 2024, which records plumbing work including unblocking the kitchen sink wastepipe, installing a new sink mixer, replacing a Methven tap dome, and noting: “As discussed need Shower installer to sort Shower Door.” That invoice supports the conclusion that a shower door issue existed by February 2024, but it does not prove that the door was incorrectly installed from the start of the tenancy.
There is also an invoice from Shower Installation Services Auckland Ltd, invoice number SIL37925, dated 8 April 2024, for collecting a liner/door set from Plumbing World and replacing the liner/door set. The total invoice was $2,074.20.
If I take 4 August 2023 as the date the issue was first clearly identified, and 8 April 2024 as the repair date, the issue remained unresolved for about eight months. However, the cause of the issue is disputed. The inspection report records it as accidental damage by the tenant, while the tenant says the door failed through no fault of his own.
I am not satisfied that Mr Dent has proved the shower door was incorrectly installed from the start of the tenancy or that the landlord was responsible for the initial failure. I accept that the landlord ultimately arranged replacement. Given the uncertainty about cause and responsibility, I do not make a separate compensation award for this item. This part of the claim is dismissed. Front rotten deck
The front deck issue is proved by inspection reports. The 23 June 2022 inspection recorded that a small added-on piece of decking to the front left of the property had started to dip or sag. The 4 August 2023 inspection recorded the same issue. The 17 July 2024 inspection again recorded that the small added piece of decking had started to dip or sag, and noted the handyman’s view that it could not really be repaired without replacing the whole piece of deck and that it might be better to remove it and replace it with weed mat and stones.
On those dates, the landlord knew about the sagging or dipping deck structure by 23 June 2022. It was still recorded as an issue on 17 July 2024. That is just over two years.
Ms Aspey submitted at the hearing that the structure was not part of the original certified building work and was more in the nature of a makeshift frame or storage area. I accept that may be correct. But if the structure was on the premises, was accessible to the tenant, and was repeatedly identified in inspection reports as sagging or dipping, the landlord still had to deal with it reasonably. That could have been by repair, replacement, or removal.
I do not award any amount for personal injury because that was not proved with sufficient supporting evidence. I do find, however, that the landlord failed to address a known hazard for an unreasonable period. I take this into account in the overall compensation award. Broken septic tank / effluent on lawn
The septic system is one of the most significant maintenance issues. Ms Dent’s table records an email on 8 September 2022 about asking Alpha Plumbing to look at leaking, a further report on 3 October 2022 of more leaks in the septic line, a 21 May 2023 complaint of septic issues, 16 and 17 January 2024 complaints that the septic tank was still flooding despite recent work, 4 March 2024 communication about a plumber attending, 5 March 2024 communication about quoting and replacing the septic system, and 19 April 2024 reference to plumbers fixing leaks.
The 4 August 2023 inspection also recorded that the back toilet filled high and became smelly after heavy rain, and that a plumber was to take a look.
The invoices show a number of relevant works. I Suk Up Ltd, invoice number 11679, dated 23 June 2021, records emptying the septic tank.
I Suk Up Ltd, invoice number 424, dated 20 September 2023, records “Empty Septic Tank” for $770.50.
Most significantly, Cleartech Installations Ltd, invoice number INV-8579, dated 23 April 2024, records installation of a new wastewater system “to replace two failed septic tanks”, including new drainage to the new treatment plant and decommissioning old tanks, for $29,635.50.
Ms Aspey says her client responded when issues were reported. I accept that. The landlord arranged plumbers, septic emptying, and ultimately a full replacement wastewater system at substantial cost. I do not accept that the landlord simply ignored the septic issue.
However, I am satisfied that the septic issue was recurrent and significant. The objective evidence supports problems from at least September 2022 until the replacement system in April 2024. That is about 19 months. I do not find that raw effluent was constantly present every day for that whole period, because the evidence does not prove that. But I do find that the system repeatedly failed or malfunctioned, particularly after rain, causing odour, flooding or overflow concerns, and loss of use or enjoyment of the rear lawn area.
The Cleartech invoice is particularly significant because it records replacement of two failed septic tanks. That supports Mr Dent’s position that this was not an isolated or minor issue. I find that the landlord did not fully discharge the maintenance obligation in relation to the septic system, despite taking some repair steps. The recurring nature and long duration of the problem warrants compensation. Insulation / Healthy Homes
Mr Dent also alleged insulation and Healthy Homes issues. The landlord relied on the Healthy Homes material and insulation documents.
The insulation material includes an invoice from The Insulation Warehouse, invoice number INV12826, dated 31 January 2019, relating to underfloor insulation and ground sheet installation. The related insulation inspection certificate recorded underfloor insulation as a pass and recorded ceiling and wall exemptions.
The Healthy Homes assessment was conducted on 15 June 2022 and generated on 29 September 2023. It recorded compliance in the relevant categories, including heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping.
I accept that Mr Dent disagreed with the practical condition of the property and said parts of the house lacked insulation. However, the objective evidence does not establish a separate Healthy Homes or insulation breach warranting a separate award. To the extent draughts, windows, ceiling works, heating, and moisture issues affected amenity, I have taken them into account in the specific maintenance findings above. This is to avoid double counting. Shared utilities / water pump
Mr Dent also raised concerns about shared utilities, water supply, and the water pump serving more than one occupier on the property. Ms Dent submitted that Mr Dent had paid costs that related to shared systems, including systems benefiting Ms Peart or the minor dwelling.
The difficulty is that this claim was not supported by a clear calculation showing what Mr Dent paid, what portion related to another occupier, and what sum should be reimbursed. The landlord’s final power/outgoings claim was agreed at $289.01. Beyond that, I am not satisfied there is sufficient evidence to make a separate quantified award for utility overcharging. This part of the claim is dismissed. Overall findings on maintenance
I find that Mr Dent has proved breaches in relation to: a. roof and ceiling water ingress, causing reduced amenity for up to about nine months, although partly explained by the early 2023 storm/flood events and insurance/trade delays; b. leaking or draughty windows, with the major window repair not completed until about 13 months after the May 2023 complaint; c. the ranch slider, which remained unresolved for about five and a half months after being identified in the August 2023 inspection; d. the front deck or deck-like structure, which remained sagging or dipping for over two years after being identified in inspection reports; and e. the septic system, which had recurring problems for about 19 months before full replacement in April 2024.
I do not find breaches in relation to asbestos, fireplace/log burner, rotten floors, exposed wiring, the driveway pothole, the shower door, or the shared utilities.
I assess compensation globally. This is the fairest approach because the proven issues overlapped, affected the same tenancy, and largely caused loss of amenity, inconvenience, discomfort, and stress rather than separately quantifiable financial losses.
I also take into account the landlord’s response. The landlord did spend significant money on the property and did arrange repairs, including roof work, window work, a replacement log burner, plumbing works, and a full wastewater system replacement. The award must therefore reflect proven delay and reduced amenity, not punish the landlord for every defect that arose during a long rural tenancy.
Standing back, I am satisfied that the proven maintenance breaches caused inconvenience, discomfort, stress and reduced amenity. I award Mr Dent $6,000 compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises in the respects identified above. This amount reflects the seriousness and duration of the proven issues, while recognising that not all allegations were proved and that the landlord did carry out substantial maintenance work.
Lastly, I acknowledge that this award is based on an imprecise assessment of inconvenience, discomfort and reduced amenity to Mr Dent. The imprecision arises because Mr Dent brought the claims approximately 11 months after the tenancy had ended. While the landlord has an obligation to maintain the premises, Mr Dent also has an obligation under section 49 of the Act to take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from the landlord’s failure to maintain. In other words, it was difficult to assess the extent of the inconvenience, discomfort and reduced or lost amenity several years after the events occurred.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am not minded to consider exemplary damages because Mr Dent may not apply for exemplary damages more than 12 months after the date of the commission of the alleged unlawful act. See section 109(2)(b) of the Act.
Even if exemplary damages were available, I would not impose them because there is strong evidence suggesting that the landlord did not intentionally breach the Act. Filing fee
Both parties have succeeded in their respective applications. Costs are to lie where they fall

Tenancy Tribunal case 5405235 — State of repair at 231 Postman Road, Dairy Flat, Dairy Flat 0794

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5405235 — State of repair at 231 Postman Road, Dairy Flat, Dairy Flat 0794

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and power/outgoings?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and power/outgoings?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.