What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5413476 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Fiona

How much money was awarded in case 5413476?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,285.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5413476?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5413476?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13778682-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5413476 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Fiona

How much money was awarded in case 5413476?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,285.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5413476?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5413476?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13778682-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

77 Paremoremo Road, Albany, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5413476 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5413476 — net $4,113.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20.2.26	$9,285.71	Rent arrears to 20.2.26
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,113.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,113.71

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5413476 — net $4,113.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20.2.26	$9,285.71	Rent arrears to 20.2.26
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,113.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,113.71

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Fiona Hunton & Mark Binney $4,113.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,200.00 (BN-00050974) to The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Fiona Hunton & Mark Binney immediately.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

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 cross applied seeking compensation in respect of landlord breaches relating to a breach of quiet enjoyment, unlawful entry, smoke alarms, Healthy Homes Standards and failing to maintain.
The tenant also seeks a part rent refund. Background
The tenancy started on 14 March 2025 and ended on 20 February 2026.
The premises consisted of a large modern 4-bedroom house with 3 bathrooms. The tenant resided there with her children and granddaughter.
The landlord filed their application seeking outstanding rent arrears and compensation for damage to a fire pit log bench. During the hearing the landlord confirmed that the fire pit log bench is yet to be repaired and therefore withdraws this claim.
The tenant cross applied.
I held a hearing with both parties present today.
Both parties provided documentary evidence in support of their claims. I also heard oral evidence from the parties during the hearing. The parties should know that all evidence has been carefully considered, even though I do not refer to all of it in my decision. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must decides are these: a. Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? b. Did the landlord commit any unlawful acts? If so, Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages? c. Did the landlord fail to ensure that the premises were compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)? d. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and if so did the breach amount to harassment? e. Did the landlord enter the premises when not authorised to? Relevant law
Section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord and that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them is the requirement that a landlord maintains the premises in a reasonable state of repair and complies with the HHS.
A failure by a landlord to comply with these requirements is an unlawful act in each case – section 13A(1F) RTA and section 45(1A) RTA.
Section 48 RTA sets out a landlord’s right of entry.
Section 85 RTA provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 2 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: a. The nature of the breach; b. The duration of the breach; and c. The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: a. The intention of the person; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest. Discussion Landlord application

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 20 February 2026. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant stated during the hearing that she stopped paying rent due to the alleged condition of the premises. These issues will be addressed below as part of the tenant’s cross application.
Having sighted the landlord’s rent ledger I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the outstanding rent debt.
The claim for rent arrears is established and ordered accordingly. Damage to fire pit log bench
The landlord withdraws this claim as the damage is yet to be repaired. Tenant application Breach of quiet enjoyment – section 38 RTA/Unlawful entry section 48 RTA
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/s] also claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says a visit by a maintenance friend of the owner [Paul] turned up on 3 separate occasions. The first attendance was when he required access to the property so that he could obtain a water pump which was stored in the garage. The tenant says he turned up, opened the garage and did not inform the tenant who he was. She says that it was the plumber who told her who he was.
The second time was when the same person attended at 6.30pm to have access to the kitchen for a maintenance issue. The tenant refused entry saying that they were having dinner and that they could not afford to have the water turned off.
The 3rd time was when Paul attended to look at the fridge. The fridge had stopped working and he attended to see if there was a blocked water line.
The landlord replied by stating that there are two garages but only one garage forms part of the tenancy. The garage which does not form part of the tenancy is locked.
The landlord says that the first visit was to have access to the non-tenancy garage for the purposes of retrieving and repairing the water pump. The second visit was for the purpose of accessing the same garage to deal with the water filters. The 3rd visit was to deal with a maintenance issue in respect of the fridge.
The landlord says that on the 3rd visit he knocked and asked permission to look at the fridge. The landlord says that the fridge ice maker was not working. The landlord confirmed that Paul was simply responding to a request for maintenance. The tenant says that Paul had her number and should have called first. The tenant confirmed during the hearing that on no occasion did Paul enter inside the house, he only entered the property and the non-tenanted garage. Analysis
The tenant’s claim that the landlord breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment is dismissed.
Section 38 RTA requires a landlord not interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort and privacy in the use of the premises.
Having carefully considered the evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord’s conduct, whether directly or through the maintenance contractor, amounted to such an interference.
In relation to the first and second occasions, the evidence establishes that the maintenance contractor attended for the purposes of access to the garage that did not form part of the tenancy (the minor garage) and which remained under the landlord’s control. The purpose of those visits was to retrieve and service the property’s water pump and to attend to the water filtration system, being legitimate maintenance matters relating to areas retained by the landlord.
Although the tenant says she was initially unaware of the contractor’s identity and considers that he should have telephoned before attending, the contractor did not seek to enter the tenanted dwelling and there is no evidence that he entered any area forming part of the tenancy without the tenant’s consent.
On the second occasion, when the contractor sought access to the kitchen in connection with maintenance, the tenant declined access because she was having dinner and did not wish to have the water supply interrupted. The contractor respected that decision and did not enter the dwelling.
The third attendance arose directly from the tenant’s maintenance request regarding the fridge, specifically the failure of the ice maker.
The contractor attended to investigate the reported fault, knocked, and sought permission before inspecting the appliance.
The tenant accepted during the hearing that on none of the 3 occasions did the contractor enter the house without permission and that his presence was confined to the property generally and the minor garage.
While it may have been preferable for the contractor to contact the tenant before attending, particularly where access to the dwelling was anticipated, the absence of prior telephone notice in the circumstances does not constitute an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy for the purposes of section 38 RTA.
The attendances were infrequent, were for genuine maintenance purposes, were connected either with areas retained by the landlord or with maintenance requests by the tenant. There is no evidence of harassment, intimidation, repeated unwarranted intrusions, or unauthorised entry into tenanted premises.
I find that the conduct complained of falls well short of establishing a breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment.
Accordingly, the claim has not been established. Breach of Healthy Home Standards Heating
The tenant says that her tenancy agreement noted that the premises did not comply with the heating requirement. The HHS statement says ‘no’ to the Heating compliant section.
The landlords say that at the time the tenancy agreement was prepared further heating was required. Prior to the start of the tenancy an 11.2kw heat pump was installed into the premises prior to the tenant moving in.
The landlord also reminded the Tribunal that they had 90 days from the start of the tenancy to have the premises compliant. The premises fully complied prior to the tenant moving in. The landlord also provided a HH assessment report from The Good Home New Zealand Limited dated 23 January 2025 confirming the premises to be fully compliant with the HH regulations. The tenant questions why the landlord did not follow the rules in respect of an accurate tenancy agreement. Moisture ingress and drainage
The tenant says that the gutters were full of grass and blocked. The tenant says that this was what was causing issues with the water tank filter. She says that this caused the water pump to over work.
The landlord responded by stating that they have checked the inspection reports prior to the tenant moving in and can see that the gutters were clear. On 9 December 2025 the landlord noticed grass and debris in the gutters which were cleaned on 9 January 2026.
The landlord says that they received no emails from the tenant raising concerns about this during the tenancy. The landlord also says that there was a period of time where the tenant was not allowing access to the property. The tenant says that it was evident that grass was growing out of the gutters. Ventilation
The tenant says that the landlord wanted her to use dehumidifiers. The tenant claims that there was draught coming through the fireplace. The tenant put a blanket stand in front of the fireplace to stop the draught. The tenant says that there were 2 fireplaces in the house.
The landlord responded by stating that the HH assessment report stated that the premises are compliant in respect of ventilation and draught issues. The landlord also says that these issues were never reported to the landlord by the tenant. The landlord says that they have double checked their messages and emails and can see no complaints in respect of the draught. Smoke alarms
The tenant claims that her tenancy agreement noted that the smoke alarms expired in 2018. The landlord confirmed that this was merely a clerical error on their part. On inspection the smoke alarms were found to be compliant with current regulations with an expiry date of 2035. Mould
The tenant says that mould started growing inside the house within 2 months of them moving in. She says it was everywhere including the curtains, window frames and window glass.
The tenant says that due to the house being two levels meant they could not reach all the mould. The tenant says that one could see mould from previous cleaning with bleach. She says that the owner agreed to have it fixed. The tenant says that there was an agreement to clean the entire house. The landlord arranged for a cleaner to attend and provide a quote however the cleaner did not turn up. The tenant says that this was an ongoing issue which was not fully addressed until after they moved out.
The landlord says that the house was fully cleaned prior to the start of the tenancy. There was no mould. They say that it is not uncommon for new renters to complain about mould issues. They also say that the issue was first raised by the tenant on 12 August 2025 by text stating that there is a mould issue.
The landlord advised the tenant to use a dehumidifier and clean the property to address the mould issue. The landlord also says that the premises are single glazed and therefore there is an expectation that a tenant will wipe down windows and other areas prone to condensation.
The landlord also says that the owners did not charge the tenant at the end of the tenancy for cleaning. The landlord also says that the owner offered to share the cleaning costs however the tenant refused this arrangement. The landlord then ordered a cleaner however the tenant would not allow the cleaner access. Analysis
The tenant has not produced any independent evidence, assessment report, or other reliable evidence establishing that the premises were not compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards.
The tenant also raised concerns regarding condensation appearing on the glass doors, stairs and the leg of a table. Apart from a small number of photographs, the tenant provided no evidence linking these observations to any breach of the landlord’s statutory obligations or demonstrating that the condition of the premises fell below the required standard.
That there might be mould present does not of itself establish a breach of the HHS.
It is not disputed that mould is caused by moisture. But the HHS are specific standards that address heating, ventilation, draught, and the proper removal of water from downpipes. The moisture that results in mould is not always due to any problem with the premises but can be caused by the way the premises are used.
I find that the premises are Healthy Homes compliant.
Accordingly, the tenant has failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the landlord breached the Healthy Homes Standards in this respect. Failure to maintain
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must a. provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair b. comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 c. provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply
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. Septic tank
The tenant claims that the septic tank was not maintained. The tenant referred to a letter from Auckland Council dated 15 August 2025 stating that the landlord was required to send in a maintenance record by 5 June 2025 confirming that maintenance of the septic tank had been carried out. The tenant also says that they received a further letter from Auckland Council dated 15 February 2026 requesting maintenance records from 5 June 2025.
The parties agreed that the water tank pump was replaced on 28 August 2025. The tenant says that the plumber advised the landlord that there was something wrong with the septic tank. The tenant says that this was done in writing. The tenant says that this came from the plumber and not her.
The landlord says that the Council requires maintenance records possibly every 6 months. The landlord stated that on 15 September 2025 they received confirmation from Jet Services confirming that they arrived on site and tested the septic tank. They reported no issues.
The landlord says that the maintenance companies are supposed to send the maintenance records to the Council directly. Fridge freezer
The tenant says the fridge/ freezer broke down on 4 November 2025 and was not replaced until 9 December 2025. The tenant also says that the new fridge arrived at 9.30pm. The tenant says that her medical condition requires her to consume only filtered water. The tenant says that the new fridge did not have the filtered water dispenser.
The landlord says that on 4 November 2025 it was reported by the tenant that the fridge was showing an error message. The message only noted that the unit was no longer dispensing water and ice. The message did not say that the fridge was not working.
The landlord emailed the tenant asking for a time for someone to look at the fridge. The landlord says that the tenant refused to communicate. Paul looked at the fridge on 17 November 2025 and found that the fridge had a blocked line and that a fridge maintenance person would need to look at it as soon as possible. On 20 November 2025 it was reported by a specialist that the fridge motor had stopped working.
The tenant says that she went out and brought a new fridge before the new one arrived. Deck
The tenant says that there is a glass balustrade around the deck where a cable tie was holding a support pole to the glass. The tenant says that this made it unsafe for her two-year granddaughter to be out there due to a 15-meter height.
The landlord provided a photograph confirming that the zip tie is simply tied around a pole and does not offer any structural support. Issue with water supply
The tenant says that there were times when they had no water for 4 days in August. The tenant says that she text the landlord on 25 August 2025 saying that they had no water pressure and no hot water.
On 26 August 2025 the tenant says that the dishwasher showed an ‘E2 error’ message which she says according to google was a water pressure issue. The tenant says that this was due to the water pump, coupled with leaves from the gutters into the filters. The issue was not fixed until October and November 2025.
The tenant says a plumber arrived on 27 August 2025 and removed the broken pump and went to source a new pump but was then advised that there was already a spare pump on the property.
The landlord says that the initial report came through on 25 August 2025 at 8pm by text. On 26 August 2025 a contractor was engaged who attended and was there for approximately 5 and a half hours and found that there was slow pressure on all fittings inside the house and a leak in the pump which was causing loss of pressure. They fitted the spare pump and found it to be undersized. They then stated that the pump would need to be replaced. The water pump was then replaced on 28 August 2025. Analysis
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to comply with the maintenance obligations imposed by section 45 RTA. Under this provision a landlord is required to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises.
The Act does not impose an obligation to ensure that every item of chattel or service operates without interruption or to remedy defects immediately.
Having considered the evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord breached those obligations.
In relation to the septic system, the tenant relied on an Auckland Council letter requesting that maintenance records be provided to the Council. However, that letter is not evidence that the septic system itself was defective or inadequately maintained.
The evidence establishes that the following concerns raised after the replacement of the water pump, a specialist contractor reported that no faults were present. There is therefore no evidence that the septic system was not maintained or that the landlord ignored any known defect.
In relation to the fridge, while I accept that the water and ice dispenser ceased operating and that a new fridge was replaced on or about 9 December 2025 following an assessment that the motor had failed, the evidence shows that the landlord responded promptly after receiving the tenant’s report on 4 November 2025 by seeking access the following day, arranging inspections, and engaging an appropriate repairer. Although there was a delay before replacement, this was attributable to the process of assessment and repair rather than any failure by the landlord to act reasonably.
Further, there is no obligation under the Act requiring a landlord to provide a fridge with a filtered water dispenser or to provide particular appliances to accommodate a tenant’s individual medical circumstances.
In relation to the deck, the tenant claims that a cable tie around a glass balustrade support rendered the deck unsafe. However, the landlord produced photographs showing that the cable tie did not provide any structural support, and the tenant provided no expert evidence establishing that the deck failed to meet any safety standard or was otherwise unsafe.
I am therefore unable to conclude that the deck was not maintained in a reasonable state of repair.
In relation to the water supply, I accept that the tenant experienced reduced water pressure and interruption to the water supply however, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord engaged a contractor the following day who attended for approximately 5 and a half hours, diagnosed a leaking pump, installed the spare pump as an interim measure, determined that it was undersized and arranged for a replacement pump which was installed on 28 August 2025.
I have carefully considered the photographic evidence provided by the tenant but see no evidence which demonstrates anything other than a prompt and reasonable response to the reported issue rather than any neglect of the landlord’s maintenance obligations. While I accept that the tenant experienced inconvenience arising from these issues, the evidence does not establish that the landlord intentionally or unreasonably failed to maintain the premises as required by the RTA.
The claim of failing to maintain has not been established and is dismissed.

Should the tenant be awarded exemplary damages?

For the Tribunal to award exemplary damages, the tenant must first establish a breach by the landlord of its statutory obligations, secondly establish that the breach amounted to a defined unlawful act, and thirdly establish that the landlord acted with intent.
In none of the instances referred to by the tenant would it be just to find that the landlord has breached its statutory obligations. And in none of the alleged instances has the tenant proved the necessary element of intent. Rent refund
The tenant claims a rent refund of half of the rent paid during the tenancy. The tenant seeks a refund of 50% rent refund for the period of 14 March 2025 to 20 February 2026. Analysis
The tenant has not established any landlord breach for which she should be awarded compensation.
It would be objectively unjust to award the tenant compensation.
Accordingly, the claim for a rent refund has not been established.
Because The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Fiona Hunton & Mark Binney has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenant sought suppression of her name. However, the tenant was not wholly or substantially successful.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the tenant having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the tenant’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the tenant and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5413476 — Rent arrears at 77 Paremoremo Road, Albany, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5413476 — Rent arrears at 77 Paremoremo Road, Albany, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Should the tenant be awarded exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Should the tenant be awarded exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions