What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5436868 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5436868?

Cleaning: $390.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Reimbursement Of Pool Restoration Co…: $491.05 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $199.39 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436868?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13773303-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5436868 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5436868?

Cleaning: $390.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Reimbursement Of Pool Restoration Co…: $491.05 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $199.39 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436868?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13773303-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

5 Colmar Road, Mellons Bay, Auckland 2014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5436868 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

5 Colmar Road, Mellons Bay, Auckland 2014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5436868 — State of repair | 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 5436868 — net $2,050.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$390.00		Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: to a reasonably clean and tidy standard only	$150.00		Cleaning: to a reasonably clean and tidy standard only
Reimbursement of pool restoration costs due to pump failure		$491.05	Reimbursement of pool restoration costs due to pump failure
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment		$750.00	breach of quiet enjoyment
Compensation: failure to maintain		$800.00	failure to maintain
Reimbursement of overpaid water rates		$199.39	Reimbursement of overpaid water rates
Compensation: cleaning at start of premises, including hedge maintenance		$350.00	cleaning at start of premises, including hedge maintenance
Total award	$540.00	$2,590.44
Net award		$2,050.44
Bond		$4,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,050.44

Claims and awards for application 5436868 — net $2,050.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $390.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Cleaning: to a reasonably clean and tidy standard only

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: to a reasonably clean and tidy standard only

Reimbursement of pool restoration costs due to pump failure

Amount: $491.05
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Reimbursement of pool restoration costs due to pump failure

Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: breach of quiet enjoyment

Compensation: failure to maintain

Amount: $800.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Compensation Water Rates

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Yan Li must pay [The tenant/s] $2,050.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The remainder of the parties’ claims and counterclaims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 10 March and 16 April 2026.
The tenant has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The parties accept that there had been overpayment of water rates by the tenant at the end of the tenancy in the sum of $199.39.
I address firstly the landlord’s counterclaims.
The tenancy ended on 21 February 2026.
The landlord claims that one day’s rent is owing. However, I am satisfied that the tenant vacated between 12pm to 2pm on the last day and no rent is owed on that last day on which the tenant vacated.
I also apply the de minimis rule to the landlord’s claim for one day’s rent and dismiss it accordingly.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for reimbursement of the toilet seat costs that the landlord has agreed to the tenant’s deduction of $74.00 from the rent at the time. The landlord never chased up on this issue until after the end of the tenancy and the tenant filing these claims against the landlord. I prefer the tenant’s evidence that she reported to the landlord that it was broken, and the landlord had agreed to the tenant replacing the toilet seat and deducting it from the rent, after giving the receipt of the toilet seat purchase to her.
I also dismiss the landlord’s claim for $114.00 tap replacement cost that the landlord had already agreed at the material time that the tenant could deduct from the rent.
The landlord’s claim for reimbursement of lamp bayonet socket cost of $172.50 also fail for similar reasons. The tenant on 30 August 2025 asked the landlord’s agent to repair the socket (pin in bayonet) which was damaged due to fair wear and tear. The landlord’s electrician was already on site to repair the chandelier, so it makes sense for the tradesperson to attend to the repair at the same time. The landlord never sought reimbursement of that charge from the tenant at the material time.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim that the backdoor keys had not been returned. The tenancy agreement refers to two keys which are the ranchslider keys which have been duly returned. I prefer the tenant’s evidence that all keys provided have been returned to the landlord; the tenant had not been provided with backdoor keys.

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 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.
The landlord’s claim that the pool pump was damaged by the tenant is unsuccessful. I prefer the tenant’s evidence that the pool was not damaged due to the tenant’s carelessness or intentional acts. I accept the tenant’s evidence that the pool pump failed due to wear and tear, weather events or power outages, rather than tenant’s actions.
I do not accept the landlord’s claim for broken windows. I prefer the tenant’s explanation that the windows were broken due to wind and weather events, not due to tenant carelessness. The tenant has duly reported the damage to the landlord at the material time.
The landlord’s claim for handrail and bifold door repairs are unsubstantiated. No quotes or supporting documents have been provided. There is no also no evidence that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
I consider the damage to the rangehood vent and kitchen benchtop to be fair wear and tear.
No quote was provided to the purported oven door hinge repairs, which damage I also find to be fair wear and tear.
The majority of the items sought by the landlord have not been proved because the landlord could not show that the damage occurred during the tenancy. This includes purported damage to the French doors.
On the purported wall repairs, no insurance claim has been made. I am unable to decide whether the repair cost is covered by the landlord's insurance, or limit the tenant's liability to the lesser of the insurance excess. On the contrary, I prefer the tenant’s photo/video evidence that the majority of the holes in the property were pre-existing. For those reasons, the claim fails.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and the carpet smelled of cat. Carpet cleaning is required. I have moderated the cleaning costs to bringing the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition only, rather than the entire amount sought by the landlord.
No complaints have been made by the landlord during the tenancy during inspections on the state of the garden. I consider the landlord’s claims to be an afterthought after the tenant’s claims had been filed. I also consider that tenant’s responsibility on garden maintenance is limited to general tidying up and weeding only, rather than to a state that a professional gardener is expected to tend it.
The claim for rubbish removal fails. There is insufficient evidence and details of what rubbish has been left behind by the tenant.
Yan Li claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim that the fire alarm was tampered with. I accept the tenant’s evidence that she had replaced the batteries at the end of the tenancy and in haste, left it on the benchtop upon exiting the premises. The landlord only had to reinstall them before being the premises could be re-occupied.
Ultimately, the tenant has disproved liability for all the landlord’s claim for damage.
Consequently, the landlord’s claim for lost rent of 8 weeks to reinstate the property also fails.
Only the amounts ordered on the table above are proved.
I now address the tenant’s claims.
I allow the tenant’s claim for reimbursement of pool restoration costs due to pump failure after a storm event. The landlord delayed in replacing the broken pump for 2 weeks at which time the pool deteriorated significantly, requiring restoration.

Did the landlord comply with their obligations on maintenance?

[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 the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; and c) comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety
The landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the start of the tenancy. The landlord has also asked the tenant to trim the hedges at the start of the premises.
I award the tenant $350.00 for having to carry out cleaning and hedge maintenance at the start of the tenancy even though they are responsibilities of the landlord. It was not reasonable for the landlord to expect tenants to maintain the trees and large hedges which is beyond a normal tenant’s obligation.
In coming to the above amount, I have had regard to the landlord deducting $200.00 from the first week’s rent towards the tenant carrying out carpet shampooing and paving work.
The landlord’s obligation is to repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair, either from observing the property or notice from the tenant: “... the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be.” (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010; see also Merwald Real Estate v Lanauze DC Auckland, MA151-89, 2 May 1989).
Here, the tenant has notified the landlord on these issues requiring maintenance with the property, but they were not repaired within a reasonable time: a. Persistent black mould from dampness and drafts b. Windows and doors without working locks and unable to be closed c. Rangehood not operating properly d. Carpet sinkhole e. Broken downpipe where the landlord asked the tenant to attend to
Compensation ought to be awarded for breach of the landlord’s obligations and where the other party has suffered a loss or inconvenience because of that breach.
The landlord has also received full rent from the tenant and is expected to provide accommodation which is suitable to be enjoyed by the tenant in consideration of payment of rent.
I award the tenant compensation for the inconvenience suffered and loss of amenities by the tenant as set out in the above table.
Only the amounts awarded as set out in the above table are proved. Did the landlord interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant?
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
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.
I do not consider late night emails/texts to be a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. Tenants can choose not to read emails or switch off their phones at those times.
While the 15 January 2025 notification for the 17 January 2025 inspection is less than 48 hours, I consider that the tenant has agreed for the inspection to take place, and the landlord has entered the premises with the permission of the tenant freely given before entry. This includes times in which the landlord had arrived late, such as 7.30pm, and inspections still taking place with the tenant’s permission.
Section 48(1)(a) RTA allows landlords to enter the premises during the currency of the tenancy agreement with the consent of the tenant freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry.
The claim to do with the landlord’s breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment, reasonable peace and privacy on these occasions are proved: a. Using the tenant’s WiFi without express permission. b. Repeated and unreasonable demands for lemons to be taken by the landlord during the tenancy. c. Threatening to issue breach notices despite rent being paid on the correct day. d. Builders and tradespeople carrying out repairs after 7 o’clock in the evening, in breach of section 48(1)(d) RTA e. Setting out too wide a timeframe (8am to 7pm for up to four days) for builders to attend the repairs thereby inconveniencing the tenant.
I award compensation in the form of general damages as set out in the table above for breach of quiet enjoyment.
Breaching the 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.
By a fine margin, I do not consider that the landlord has breached the quiet enjoyment obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment. I therefore dismiss the tenant’s claim that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
I order suppression of the tenant’s name because the tenant has been largely successful in her claim and defence of the counterclaim by the landlord.
The bond will be refunded to the tenant in full.

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 5436868 — net $2,050.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$390.00		Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: to a reasonably clean and tidy standard only	$150.00		Cleaning: to a reasonably clean and tidy standard only
Reimbursement of pool restoration costs due to pump failure		$491.05	Reimbursement of pool restoration costs due to pump failure
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment		$750.00	breach of quiet enjoyment
Compensation: failure to maintain		$800.00	failure to maintain
Reimbursement of overpaid water rates		$199.39	Reimbursement of overpaid water rates
Compensation: cleaning at start of premises, including hedge maintenance		$350.00	cleaning at start of premises, including hedge maintenance
Total award	$540.00	$2,590.44
Net award		$2,050.44
Bond		$4,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,050.44

Claims and awards for application 5436868 — net $2,050.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $390.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Cleaning: to a reasonably clean and tidy standard only

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: to a reasonably clean and tidy standard only

Reimbursement of pool restoration costs due to pump failure

Amount: $491.05
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Reimbursement of pool restoration costs due to pump failure

Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment

Amount: $750.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: breach of quiet enjoyment

Compensation: failure to maintain

Amount: $800.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Compensation Water Rates

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Yan Li must pay [The tenant/s] $2,050.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The remainder of the parties’ claims and counterclaims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 10 March and 16 April 2026.
The tenant has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The parties accept that there had been overpayment of water rates by the tenant at the end of the tenancy in the sum of $199.39.
I address firstly the landlord’s counterclaims.
The tenancy ended on 21 February 2026.
The landlord claims that one day’s rent is owing. However, I am satisfied that the tenant vacated between 12pm to 2pm on the last day and no rent is owed on that last day on which the tenant vacated.
I also apply the de minimis rule to the landlord’s claim for one day’s rent and dismiss it accordingly.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for reimbursement of the toilet seat costs that the landlord has agreed to the tenant’s deduction of $74.00 from the rent at the time. The landlord never chased up on this issue until after the end of the tenancy and the tenant filing these claims against the landlord. I prefer the tenant’s evidence that she reported to the landlord that it was broken, and the landlord had agreed to the tenant replacing the toilet seat and deducting it from the rent, after giving the receipt of the toilet seat purchase to her.
I also dismiss the landlord’s claim for $114.00 tap replacement cost that the landlord had already agreed at the material time that the tenant could deduct from the rent.
The landlord’s claim for reimbursement of lamp bayonet socket cost of $172.50 also fail for similar reasons. The tenant on 30 August 2025 asked the landlord’s agent to repair the socket (pin in bayonet) which was damaged due to fair wear and tear. The landlord’s electrician was already on site to repair the chandelier, so it makes sense for the tradesperson to attend to the repair at the same time. The landlord never sought reimbursement of that charge from the tenant at the material time.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim that the backdoor keys had not been returned. The tenancy agreement refers to two keys which are the ranchslider keys which have been duly returned. I prefer the tenant’s evidence that all keys provided have been returned to the landlord; the tenant had not been provided with backdoor keys.

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 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.
The landlord’s claim that the pool pump was damaged by the tenant is unsuccessful. I prefer the tenant’s evidence that the pool was not damaged due to the tenant’s carelessness or intentional acts. I accept the tenant’s evidence that the pool pump failed due to wear and tear, weather events or power outages, rather than tenant’s actions.
I do not accept the landlord’s claim for broken windows. I prefer the tenant’s explanation that the windows were broken due to wind and weather events, not due to tenant carelessness. The tenant has duly reported the damage to the landlord at the material time.
The landlord’s claim for handrail and bifold door repairs are unsubstantiated. No quotes or supporting documents have been provided. There is no also no evidence that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
I consider the damage to the rangehood vent and kitchen benchtop to be fair wear and tear.
No quote was provided to the purported oven door hinge repairs, which damage I also find to be fair wear and tear.
The majority of the items sought by the landlord have not been proved because the landlord could not show that the damage occurred during the tenancy. This includes purported damage to the French doors.
On the purported wall repairs, no insurance claim has been made. I am unable to decide whether the repair cost is covered by the landlord's insurance, or limit the tenant's liability to the lesser of the insurance excess. On the contrary, I prefer the tenant’s photo/video evidence that the majority of the holes in the property were pre-existing. For those reasons, the claim fails.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and the carpet smelled of cat. Carpet cleaning is required. I have moderated the cleaning costs to bringing the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition only, rather than the entire amount sought by the landlord.
No complaints have been made by the landlord during the tenancy during inspections on the state of the garden. I consider the landlord’s claims to be an afterthought after the tenant’s claims had been filed. I also consider that tenant’s responsibility on garden maintenance is limited to general tidying up and weeding only, rather than to a state that a professional gardener is expected to tend it.
The claim for rubbish removal fails. There is insufficient evidence and details of what rubbish has been left behind by the tenant.
Yan Li claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim that the fire alarm was tampered with. I accept the tenant’s evidence that she had replaced the batteries at the end of the tenancy and in haste, left it on the benchtop upon exiting the premises. The landlord only had to reinstall them before being the premises could be re-occupied.
Ultimately, the tenant has disproved liability for all the landlord’s claim for damage.
Consequently, the landlord’s claim for lost rent of 8 weeks to reinstate the property also fails.
Only the amounts ordered on the table above are proved.
I now address the tenant’s claims.
I allow the tenant’s claim for reimbursement of pool restoration costs due to pump failure after a storm event. The landlord delayed in replacing the broken pump for 2 weeks at which time the pool deteriorated significantly, requiring restoration.

Did the landlord comply with their obligations on maintenance?

[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 the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; and c) comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety
The landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the start of the tenancy. The landlord has also asked the tenant to trim the hedges at the start of the premises.
I award the tenant $350.00 for having to carry out cleaning and hedge maintenance at the start of the tenancy even though they are responsibilities of the landlord. It was not reasonable for the landlord to expect tenants to maintain the trees and large hedges which is beyond a normal tenant’s obligation.
In coming to the above amount, I have had regard to the landlord deducting $200.00 from the first week’s rent towards the tenant carrying out carpet shampooing and paving work.
The landlord’s obligation is to repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair, either from observing the property or notice from the tenant: “... the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be.” (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010; see also Merwald Real Estate v Lanauze DC Auckland, MA151-89, 2 May 1989).
Here, the tenant has notified the landlord on these issues requiring maintenance with the property, but they were not repaired within a reasonable time: a. Persistent black mould from dampness and drafts b. Windows and doors without working locks and unable to be closed c. Rangehood not operating properly d. Carpet sinkhole e. Broken downpipe where the landlord asked the tenant to attend to
Compensation ought to be awarded for breach of the landlord’s obligations and where the other party has suffered a loss or inconvenience because of that breach.
The landlord has also received full rent from the tenant and is expected to provide accommodation which is suitable to be enjoyed by the tenant in consideration of payment of rent.
I award the tenant compensation for the inconvenience suffered and loss of amenities by the tenant as set out in the above table.
Only the amounts awarded as set out in the above table are proved. Did the landlord interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant?
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
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.
I do not consider late night emails/texts to be a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. Tenants can choose not to read emails or switch off their phones at those times.
While the 15 January 2025 notification for the 17 January 2025 inspection is less than 48 hours, I consider that the tenant has agreed for the inspection to take place, and the landlord has entered the premises with the permission of the tenant freely given before entry. This includes times in which the landlord had arrived late, such as 7.30pm, and inspections still taking place with the tenant’s permission.
Section 48(1)(a) RTA allows landlords to enter the premises during the currency of the tenancy agreement with the consent of the tenant freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry.
The claim to do with the landlord’s breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment, reasonable peace and privacy on these occasions are proved: a. Using the tenant’s WiFi without express permission. b. Repeated and unreasonable demands for lemons to be taken by the landlord during the tenancy. c. Threatening to issue breach notices despite rent being paid on the correct day. d. Builders and tradespeople carrying out repairs after 7 o’clock in the evening, in breach of section 48(1)(d) RTA e. Setting out too wide a timeframe (8am to 7pm for up to four days) for builders to attend the repairs thereby inconveniencing the tenant.
I award compensation in the form of general damages as set out in the table above for breach of quiet enjoyment.
Breaching the 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.
By a fine margin, I do not consider that the landlord has breached the quiet enjoyment obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment. I therefore dismiss the tenant’s claim that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
I order suppression of the tenant’s name because the tenant has been largely successful in her claim and defence of the counterclaim by the landlord.
The bond will be refunded to the tenant in full.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436868 — State of repair at 5 Colmar Road, Mellons Bay, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436868 — State of repair at 5 Colmar Road, Mellons Bay, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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

Did the landlord comply with their obligations on maintenance?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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

Did the landlord comply with their obligations on maintenance?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions