What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407189 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5407189?

Cleaning: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: 4 Days Out Of Property: $428.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen And Bathroom Drawers: $402.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,699.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $480.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $5.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407189?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407189?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13879252-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407189 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5407189?

Cleaning: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: 4 Days Out Of Property: $428.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen And Bathroom Drawers: $402.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,699.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $480.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $5.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407189?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407189?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13879252-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

20B Aspiring Avenue, Clover Park, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5407189 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

20B Aspiring Avenue, Clover Park, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5407189 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5407189 — net $91.06 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears 5/10/25	$2,699.71		Rent arrears 5/10/25
Water rates	$5.42		Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Lock/key replacement: Sliding door	$230.00		Lock/key replacement: Sliding door
Kitchen and bathroom drawers	$402.00		Kitchen and bathroom drawers
Cleaning	$862.50		Cleaning
Rubbish removal: and lawns	$480.00		Rubbish removal: and lawns
Compensation: 4 days out of property		$428.57	4 days out of property
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages		$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Compensation for letterbox and fence delays		$400.00	Compensation for letterbox and fence delays
Total award	$4,707.63	$1,856.57
Net award	$91.06
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$91.06

Claims and awards for application 5407189 — net $91.06 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears 5/10/25

Amount: $2,699.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears 5/10/25

Water rates

Amount: $5.42
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Lock/key replacement: Sliding door

Amount: $230.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement: Sliding door

Kitchen and bathroom drawers

Amount: $402.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Kitchen and bathroom drawers

Dismissed claims

Property Damage

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Nzpro Property Management Limited As Agent For Neel Pandey $62.49 immediately for rent arrears to 5 October 2025, compensation, and filing fee, as calculated and shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Nzpro Property Management Limited As Agent For Neel Pandey immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has claimed that the property was not healthy homes compliant, and that the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment. She seeks exemplary damages, reimbursement of the filing fee and compensation for not being able to reside at the property while repairs were being carried out. Landlord’s claims:

How much is owed for rent and water bills?

The tenancy ended on 5 October 2025. The landlord provided rent records and a water bill which prove the amount of $2699.71 owing in rent arrears and $5.42 owing in water bills at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant does not dispute the rent arrears and water bill.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the rent arrears and a water bill.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1) (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided an exit inspection report and photos as well as an invoice for the cost of the cleaning, rubbish removal and lawns.
The photos support the landlords claims for the cleaning, rubbish removal and lawns. I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for these costs.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Upstairs door lock. -Downstairs ranch slider lock. -Kitchen and bathroom vanity drawers damaged and missing.
The landlord provided an entrance and exit inspection report and photos. In addition, the landlord provided detailed invoices for the cost of the repairs. Upstairs door lock:
The tenant does not dispute the missing upstairs door keys. The landlord has proven their claim for the cost of $230.00 to replace the door lock. Kitchen and bathroom drawers:
The tenant was aware of an issue with the kitchen and bathroom drawers being damaged or missing. The tenant had sublet the upstairs portion of the property to another person. This subtenant had told the tenant about the broken drawers in her bathroom. The kitchen cupboard had been damaged and required repairs.
I find the landlord has proven their claim for the cost of the repairs to the drawers, which are $402.50. Ranch slider lock:
The landlord seeks to recover the cost of replacing the locking mechanism on a ranch slider, claiming that it was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord submits that the lock was broken and requires replacement.
Under section 40(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a tenant must not intentionally or carelessly damage, or permit any other person to damage, the premises. However, section 49B(8)(a)(i) provides that it is for the landlord to prove that any damage is not fair wear and tear.
In this case, the property is approximately 40 years old. It is reasonable to expect that fittings and fixtures such as locking mechanisms will deteriorate and may break over time due to ordinary use. There is no evidence before me to suggest that the tenant wilfully or carelessly damaged the lock, or that the damage was anything other than the result of fair wear and tear.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has discharged the onus of proving that the damage was not fair wear and tear, as required by section 49B(8)(a)(i).
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for the replacement cost of the ranch slider locking mechanism is dismissed.
Other than the ranch slider lock mentioned above, I find the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Tenants’ claims: [The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed and her breached quiet enjoyment:
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant advised that the owner of the property would interfere with her tenancy. Despite having a property manager, the owner would contact the tenant directly if he sought to come to the property or wanted to complain to the tenant about her activities at the property. The owner drove past the property as he lived locally and would regularly comment on cars in the driveway or possessions on the property that he wanted to be moved. The property manager would advise her of comments and messages the owner wanted to be convened to the tenant.
The tenant said the owner was always interfering and coming to the property, particularly when the upstairs tenant had moved out. The tenant felt that she was being spied on and bullied in her home by the owner.
The Tribunal finds that the landlord, through the actions of the owner, has breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment under section 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The owner, despite appointing a property manager, repeatedly monitored the property, contacted the tenant directly to arrange repairs and visits, complained about the tenant’s lawful activities (such as having visitors and vehicles), and arranged for repairs to be carried out by friends and associates during evenings and weekends. This conduct was intrusive and persistent, causing the tenant to feel bullied and spied on.
Section 38(3) of the Act provides that a contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances amounting to harassment is an unlawful act. The Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord’s conduct, taken as a whole, constitutes harassment and is an unlawful act. Exemplary Damages
The Tribunal must consider the following factors when considering exemplary damages (see s109(3) RTA): -Intent: The owner’s repeated and deliberate actions, despite having a property manager, show that the unlawful act was committed intentionally. -Effect: The tenant was caused significant distress, feeling bullied and spied on in her own home. -Interests of the Tenant: The tenant was entitled to reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy in the use of the premises. -Public Interest: There is a strong public interest in deterring landlords from interfering with tenants’ quiet enjoyment and from engaging in harassing behaviour.
Having regard to the above, it is just to make an award of exemplary damages. The maximum amount of exemplary damages for a breach of section 38 is set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.
The landlord’s conduct amounted to an intentional and persistent interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy, constituting harassment and an unlawful act. The statutory test for exemplary damages is met, and an award of $1,000 is just in the circumstances. Compensation for loss of property during repairs:
During the tenancy, the kitchen became damaged due to an extensive leak. The landlord had to carry out repairs to the kitchen. The tenant seeks compensation for the loss of her home during a 4–5-day period the work was being carried out.
Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires the landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. If repairs are necessary, they should be carried out in a way that minimises disruption to the tenant.
The Tribunal finds that, while the premises were not technically uninhabitable, the presence of tradespeople and the nature of the repair work meant that the tenant, with young children, could not reasonably remain in the property for 4 to 5 days and nights. The landlord did not offer alternative accommodation or a rent rebate for this period.
Under section 77(2)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the Tribunal may order compensation for loss of amenity or inconvenience where the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy has been affected.
The Tribunal awards the tenant compensation of $428.57, being the equivalent of 4 days’ rent, for the period she was unable to reasonably occupy the premises due to the repair work. Failure to maintain:
The tenant claims the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, specifically: •There was a major leak that caused serious mould issues in the walls. The landlord remedied the leak and mould after being notified. •The tenant claims the property remained cold and had some residual mould, and her children became unwell. •The tenant also reported that the fence was not repaired for several months after notification, and the letterbox was removed and not replaced for 6 months.
Section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986: The landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises.
Section 45(1) (bb): The landlord must comply with the healthy homes’ standards.
Section 45(1A): Failure to comply with any of paragraphs (a) to (ca) of subsection (1) is declared to be an unlawful act.
The Tribunal accepts that the landlord remedied the major leak and mould within a reasonable timeframe after being notified, and the property is compliant with Healthy Homes Standards. There is no breach of Healthy Homes Standards or failure to maintain in these regards.
However, the Tribunal finds that the landlord failed to repair the fence and replace the letterbox within a reasonable timeframe after being notified by the tenant. The fence was left unrepaired for several months, affecting the tenant’s security and use of the outdoor area, particularly with the aggressive dogs from next door and the tenants’ young children. The letterbox was not replaced for 6 months, causing inconvenience and potential issues with mail delivery.
Section 77(2)(n): The Tribunal may order the landlord to pay compensation to the tenant for breach of any express or implied provision of the tenancy agreement or any provision of this Act.
I consider it appropriate that the landlord should pay compensation for these delays in repairs. For the delay in repairing the fence, the Tribunal awards $250, reflecting the loss of amenity, security, and inconvenience suffered by the tenant. For the delay in replacing the letterbox, the Tribunal awards $150, reflecting the inconvenience and potential loss of mail.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord failed to address repairs to the fence and letterbox within a reasonable timeframe, causing loss of amenity and inconvenience to the tenant. This is a breach of the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Act. Compensation is awarded under section 77(2)(n). Bond/Filing Fee/Suppression:
Because Nzpro Property Management Limited As Agent For Neel Pandey has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because Nzpro Property Management Limited As Agent For Neel Pandey has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant has sought suppression of her name and details and as she has been successful, I am granting suppression. Section 95A (1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars be suppressed.
The landlord did not seek suppression.
The Bond Centre is to refund the bond to the landlord to offset the debt owed by the tenant to the landlord.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5407189 — net $91.06 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears 5/10/25	$2,699.71		Rent arrears 5/10/25
Water rates	$5.42		Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Lock/key replacement: Sliding door	$230.00		Lock/key replacement: Sliding door
Kitchen and bathroom drawers	$402.00		Kitchen and bathroom drawers
Cleaning	$862.50		Cleaning
Rubbish removal: and lawns	$480.00		Rubbish removal: and lawns
Compensation: 4 days out of property		$428.57	4 days out of property
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages		$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Compensation for letterbox and fence delays		$400.00	Compensation for letterbox and fence delays
Total award	$4,707.63	$1,856.57
Net award	$91.06
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$91.06

Claims and awards for application 5407189 — net $91.06 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears 5/10/25

Amount: $2,699.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears 5/10/25

Water rates

Amount: $5.42
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Lock/key replacement: Sliding door

Amount: $230.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement: Sliding door

Kitchen and bathroom drawers

Amount: $402.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Kitchen and bathroom drawers

Dismissed claims

Property Damage

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Nzpro Property Management Limited As Agent For Neel Pandey $62.49 immediately for rent arrears to 5 October 2025, compensation, and filing fee, as calculated and shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Nzpro Property Management Limited As Agent For Neel Pandey immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has claimed that the property was not healthy homes compliant, and that the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment. She seeks exemplary damages, reimbursement of the filing fee and compensation for not being able to reside at the property while repairs were being carried out. Landlord’s claims:

How much is owed for rent and water bills?

The tenancy ended on 5 October 2025. The landlord provided rent records and a water bill which prove the amount of $2699.71 owing in rent arrears and $5.42 owing in water bills at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant does not dispute the rent arrears and water bill.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the rent arrears and a water bill.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1) (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided an exit inspection report and photos as well as an invoice for the cost of the cleaning, rubbish removal and lawns.
The photos support the landlords claims for the cleaning, rubbish removal and lawns. I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for these costs.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Upstairs door lock. -Downstairs ranch slider lock. -Kitchen and bathroom vanity drawers damaged and missing.
The landlord provided an entrance and exit inspection report and photos. In addition, the landlord provided detailed invoices for the cost of the repairs. Upstairs door lock:
The tenant does not dispute the missing upstairs door keys. The landlord has proven their claim for the cost of $230.00 to replace the door lock. Kitchen and bathroom drawers:
The tenant was aware of an issue with the kitchen and bathroom drawers being damaged or missing. The tenant had sublet the upstairs portion of the property to another person. This subtenant had told the tenant about the broken drawers in her bathroom. The kitchen cupboard had been damaged and required repairs.
I find the landlord has proven their claim for the cost of the repairs to the drawers, which are $402.50. Ranch slider lock:
The landlord seeks to recover the cost of replacing the locking mechanism on a ranch slider, claiming that it was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord submits that the lock was broken and requires replacement.
Under section 40(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a tenant must not intentionally or carelessly damage, or permit any other person to damage, the premises. However, section 49B(8)(a)(i) provides that it is for the landlord to prove that any damage is not fair wear and tear.
In this case, the property is approximately 40 years old. It is reasonable to expect that fittings and fixtures such as locking mechanisms will deteriorate and may break over time due to ordinary use. There is no evidence before me to suggest that the tenant wilfully or carelessly damaged the lock, or that the damage was anything other than the result of fair wear and tear.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has discharged the onus of proving that the damage was not fair wear and tear, as required by section 49B(8)(a)(i).
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for the replacement cost of the ranch slider locking mechanism is dismissed.
Other than the ranch slider lock mentioned above, I find the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Tenants’ claims: [The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed and her breached quiet enjoyment:
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant advised that the owner of the property would interfere with her tenancy. Despite having a property manager, the owner would contact the tenant directly if he sought to come to the property or wanted to complain to the tenant about her activities at the property. The owner drove past the property as he lived locally and would regularly comment on cars in the driveway or possessions on the property that he wanted to be moved. The property manager would advise her of comments and messages the owner wanted to be convened to the tenant.
The tenant said the owner was always interfering and coming to the property, particularly when the upstairs tenant had moved out. The tenant felt that she was being spied on and bullied in her home by the owner.
The Tribunal finds that the landlord, through the actions of the owner, has breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment under section 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The owner, despite appointing a property manager, repeatedly monitored the property, contacted the tenant directly to arrange repairs and visits, complained about the tenant’s lawful activities (such as having visitors and vehicles), and arranged for repairs to be carried out by friends and associates during evenings and weekends. This conduct was intrusive and persistent, causing the tenant to feel bullied and spied on.
Section 38(3) of the Act provides that a contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances amounting to harassment is an unlawful act. The Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord’s conduct, taken as a whole, constitutes harassment and is an unlawful act. Exemplary Damages
The Tribunal must consider the following factors when considering exemplary damages (see s109(3) RTA): -Intent: The owner’s repeated and deliberate actions, despite having a property manager, show that the unlawful act was committed intentionally. -Effect: The tenant was caused significant distress, feeling bullied and spied on in her own home. -Interests of the Tenant: The tenant was entitled to reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy in the use of the premises. -Public Interest: There is a strong public interest in deterring landlords from interfering with tenants’ quiet enjoyment and from engaging in harassing behaviour.
Having regard to the above, it is just to make an award of exemplary damages. The maximum amount of exemplary damages for a breach of section 38 is set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.
The landlord’s conduct amounted to an intentional and persistent interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy, constituting harassment and an unlawful act. The statutory test for exemplary damages is met, and an award of $1,000 is just in the circumstances. Compensation for loss of property during repairs:
During the tenancy, the kitchen became damaged due to an extensive leak. The landlord had to carry out repairs to the kitchen. The tenant seeks compensation for the loss of her home during a 4–5-day period the work was being carried out.
Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires the landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. If repairs are necessary, they should be carried out in a way that minimises disruption to the tenant.
The Tribunal finds that, while the premises were not technically uninhabitable, the presence of tradespeople and the nature of the repair work meant that the tenant, with young children, could not reasonably remain in the property for 4 to 5 days and nights. The landlord did not offer alternative accommodation or a rent rebate for this period.
Under section 77(2)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the Tribunal may order compensation for loss of amenity or inconvenience where the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy has been affected.
The Tribunal awards the tenant compensation of $428.57, being the equivalent of 4 days’ rent, for the period she was unable to reasonably occupy the premises due to the repair work. Failure to maintain:
The tenant claims the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, specifically: •There was a major leak that caused serious mould issues in the walls. The landlord remedied the leak and mould after being notified. •The tenant claims the property remained cold and had some residual mould, and her children became unwell. •The tenant also reported that the fence was not repaired for several months after notification, and the letterbox was removed and not replaced for 6 months.
Section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986: The landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises.
Section 45(1) (bb): The landlord must comply with the healthy homes’ standards.
Section 45(1A): Failure to comply with any of paragraphs (a) to (ca) of subsection (1) is declared to be an unlawful act.
The Tribunal accepts that the landlord remedied the major leak and mould within a reasonable timeframe after being notified, and the property is compliant with Healthy Homes Standards. There is no breach of Healthy Homes Standards or failure to maintain in these regards.
However, the Tribunal finds that the landlord failed to repair the fence and replace the letterbox within a reasonable timeframe after being notified by the tenant. The fence was left unrepaired for several months, affecting the tenant’s security and use of the outdoor area, particularly with the aggressive dogs from next door and the tenants’ young children. The letterbox was not replaced for 6 months, causing inconvenience and potential issues with mail delivery.
Section 77(2)(n): The Tribunal may order the landlord to pay compensation to the tenant for breach of any express or implied provision of the tenancy agreement or any provision of this Act.
I consider it appropriate that the landlord should pay compensation for these delays in repairs. For the delay in repairing the fence, the Tribunal awards $250, reflecting the loss of amenity, security, and inconvenience suffered by the tenant. For the delay in replacing the letterbox, the Tribunal awards $150, reflecting the inconvenience and potential loss of mail.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord failed to address repairs to the fence and letterbox within a reasonable timeframe, causing loss of amenity and inconvenience to the tenant. This is a breach of the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Act. Compensation is awarded under section 77(2)(n). Bond/Filing Fee/Suppression:
Because Nzpro Property Management Limited As Agent For Neel Pandey has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because Nzpro Property Management Limited As Agent For Neel Pandey has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant has sought suppression of her name and details and as she has been successful, I am granting suppression. Section 95A (1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars be suppressed.
The landlord did not seek suppression.
The Bond Centre is to refund the bond to the landlord to offset the debt owed by the tenant to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407189 — Rent arrears at 20B Aspiring Avenue, Clover Park, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407189 — Rent arrears at 20B Aspiring Avenue, Clover Park, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water bills?

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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water bills?

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