What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5444751 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The party] and [The party] at 43 Kingswood Road,

How much money was awarded in case 5444751?

Compensation: $620.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $9,856.42 awarded to landlord; Board Up Two Broken Windows: $393.82 awarded to landlord; Replace Two Broken Windows: $1,130.91 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5444751?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5444751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13244290-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5444751 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The party] and [The party] at 43 Kingswood Road,

How much money was awarded in case 5444751?

Compensation: $620.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $9,856.42 awarded to landlord; Board Up Two Broken Windows: $393.82 awarded to landlord; Replace Two Broken Windows: $1,130.91 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5444751?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5444751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13244290-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

43 Kingswood Road, Brookfield, Tauranga 3110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5444751 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

43 Kingswood Road, Brookfield, Tauranga 3110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5444751 — 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 5444751 — net $10,545.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 March 2026	$9,856.42		Rent arrears to 2 March 2026
Repairs: Board up two broken windows	$393.82		Repairs: Board up two broken windows
Repairs: Replace two broken windows	$1,130.91		Repairs: Replace two broken windows
Compensation- unlawful notice		$620.00	unlawful notice
Total award	$11,381.15	$620.00
Net award	$10,545.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,545.15

Claims and awards for application 5444751 — net $10,545.15 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 2 March 2026

Amount: $9,856.42
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 2 March 2026

Repairs: Board up two broken windows

Amount: $393.82
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Board up two broken windows

Repairs: Replace two broken windows

Amount: $1,130.91
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Replace two broken windows

Compensation- unlawful notice

Amount: $620.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: unlawful notice

Total award

Landlord $11,381.15 · Tenant $620.00

Net award

Landlord $10,545.15

Dismissed claims

Filing Fee — M Pollak 07 March 2026 __________________________________________________________________________________ 544475112
Healthy Homes Standards — Breach of healthy homes standards __________________________________________________________________________________ 54447518

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Rent arrears Property damage Filing Fee

Order

The tenancy of [The party] and [The party] at 43 Kingswood Road, Brookfield, Tauranga 3110 is terminated, and possession is granted to Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited, at 5:00pm on Saturday 7 March 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $216.00 (5897342-002) to Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited immediately.
[The party] and [The party] must pay Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited $10,545.15 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on Friday 27 February 2026.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, compensation and refund of the bond.
The tenants have applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the application fee.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation or general damages in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation or general damages, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation or general damages awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord provided rent records that prove the tenants have been recidivist in their rent beaches and that the landlord has given them several opportunities to repay their rent arrears in instalments an have delayed termination of their tenancy by putting in place a conditional termination order, not immediately enforcing the condition termination order when the tenants first breached the rent arrears debt conditions of the 10 May 2025 mediation order and trying to work with them to retain the tenancy.
The female tenant claimed the male tenant was suffering from mental health challenges, had taken control of the family finances and had assured her the rent arrears debt repayment sums were being paid in full and on time. She had been unaware that he had breached the mediated debt repayment plan and asked for the Tribunal’s leniency as she and her children had no where to go.
The rent records prove the rent arrears are still significantly high and that the tenants were in more than 21 days rent arrears at the date the landlord filed its application on 13 February 2026. Section 55(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) is quite clear, if rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed, the Tribunal has no discretion and must terminate the tenancy. It cannot take the tenants personal and financial circumstances into account.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy and the tenancy is terminated as at 5:00pm on Saturday 7 March 2026. The tenant was made aware at the hearing on 27 February 2026 that she had to have moved out and returned the keys to the landlord by 5:00pm on Monday 9 March 2026.

Are the tenants 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:
The dining room window was cracked when the boys were mowing the lawn, and something flicked up. The tenants accepted liability but were unable to pay the cost of boarding it up and then repairing it so agreed to repay the debt; and
The daughters bedroom window cracked when she was wiping the window. The tenants accepted liability but were unable to pay the cost of boarding it up and then repairing it so agreed to repay the debt.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have accepted liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the RTA obligations to the tenants?

The tenants claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is 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 might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Breaching any or all of these s45(1) 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. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain
The tenants gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to her attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances during the tenancy. The tenancy commenced on 8 February 2013 and is current.
The tenants and their whanau claim they have lived in what they described as damp, wet and mouldy substandard conditions for the majority of the tenancy, and say that the repair and maintenance work that has been done on the premise has been sub-standard and has not fixed the issues properly. Consequently, they have lived in an environment they say has made both of them and their children unwell, both mentally and physically and has also caused the tenants to separate as the male tenant feels he can no longer live safely in the current unhealthy conditions. He stated that he also wants his family to leave, but his wife has refuses to go as she has no other alternative accommodation to go to. He says their tamariki and their mokopuna don’t want to come to stay or visit them in the house because it is no unhealthy and that the landlord never addresses the core issues that make the house, rotten, damp unsanitary and mouldy
The parties confirmed the tenants made an application on 17 February 2026, under the Official Information Act, to obtain all the records held by the landlord about the premise. The landlord is not subject to the OIA but has processed the requested as a Privacy Act 2020 request, under which it has 20 working days to respond to the request. On 27 February 2026, the tenants had not received the information they requested, so did not have any evidence to prove their repair and maintenance claims.
The female tenant read out some dates repair and maintenance work had been completed in 2022, from what she stated was a work order report from the landlord. A copy of this report had been in the tenants’ possession since 2022 but had not been submitted to the Tribunal.
The tenants stated the landlord had all the information that would prove their claims and asked why I was not asking the landlord for the information the tenants needed to prove their claims. I confirmed that the burden of proof in on the applicant to prove their claims and as such the landlord had the burden of proof to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities and the tenants had the same burden of proof to prove their claims. It was not for the landlord to come to the hearing ready to prove the tenants claims for them.
The landlord claims it had addressed all repair and maintenance issues raised in a timely manner and that it records show only two open work orders that it is still addressing. These relate to tree trimming, that it is waiting for council consent to complete. The other is shower repairs that it is working through currently. Leaks and mould
The tenants claim that there have been multiple serious leaks in the house. The main one of which appears to have been coming from the bathroom/shower and has been affecting the wall of an adjacent bedroom. The tenants say the landlord keeps sending contractors, but the leak is never fully resolved. This they say has caused high levels of dampness and mould in the house.
The tenants did not have any photographic or video evidence to prove the existence of the leak nor did they have evidence of when they first raised the issue, how, what was done, when, what problems persisted and how or when were they investigated again or remediated.
The tenants also raised an issue with the toilet that they say continues to leak raw sewage onto the floor onto the bathroom floor when they sit on it or flush it. They say it is not sealed around the bottom. Again, the tenants did not have any photographic or video evidence to prove the existence of the leak nor did they have evidence of when they first raised the issue, how, what was done, when, what problems persisted and how or when were they investigated again or remediated.
The tenants also raised an issue
I find that the tenants have not proven these claims on the balance of probabilities due to insufficient evidence. The claims are therefore dismissed. Holes in walls, rotten floors and carpet
The tenants say the walls, skirting boards and flooring have rotted due to the ongoing leaks and the carpet has been water damaged also and is mouldy and damp. The tenants evidence is that they have been told that the walls, flooring, skirting boards and carpet cannot be fixed until the leaks are full remediated and that has never happened so they live in unsanitary, unsafe, mouldy and damp conditions. They also say they run dehumidifiers all the time, at their expense, and are not reimbursed for the additional power they have to pay for when they should not have to run these dehumidifiers 24/7 if the leaks and the damage they have caused were fully remediated.
The tenants have failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. The claim is dismissed. Breach of healthy homes standards
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 8 February 2013. Therefore, the premise had to be fully healthy homes compliant by 1 July 2024 but had to meet the insulation standard from 1 July 2019. A. Insulation
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to comply with insulation standard.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Houses constructed between 1978 and 2016 often had draped foil underfloor insulation, which was an acceptable solution for meeting energy efficient requirements in the Building Code. The healthy homes insulation standard permits an exemption to the current insulation standard requirements for foil underfloor insulation that remains in reasonable condition, where the landlord has compliance documents to prove the home was built to meet these requirements of the time.
If the foil underfloor insulation is not in reasonable condition (such as where it is damaged, ripped or no longer shiny) or it doesn’t meet the criteria for an R- value exemption, it needs to be replaced with new underfloor insulation that is not foil and that meets the required minimum R-value. Retrofitting or repairing foil insulation has been prohibited under the Building Act since 1 July 2016 because of the high risk of electric shock.
The tenants claim there is black mould in the insulation and that the premise is not fully insulated and is cold and damp.
The tenants did not produce any no evidence of this.
The landlord provided a heathy homes compliance statement which confirms that the ceiling insulation was last inspected on 4 November 2022, was in good condition and met the standard. It also confirms the underfloor insulation was last inspected on 30 October 2024, is in good condition and meets the standard. The wall insulation is unknown as the assessor was unable to access the sealed cavities. Wall insulation is not required under the standard.
The claim is dismissed for lack of evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities and the landlord has provided evidence that disproves the claim.

Did the landlord give the tenants notice to terminate the tenancy unlawfully?

Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
On 4 February 2026 the tenants received a call informing them that the conditional termination clause of the mediators 10 May 2025 Order had been triggered because the debt repayment due had been missed and the landlord was giving the tenants notice that the tenancy would be terminated, in accordance with the mediator’s conditional Order. The tenants say that they were told this was out of the property manager’s hands and that bailiffs would be called if the tenants did not move out immediately. The female tenant was on her way back from a holiday and was panicked as she had no way to immediately move out and nowhere for her and her children to go. She also stated that her husband was in charge of making regular rent and debt repayment instalments and she was not aware that he had missed any. She confirmed that she had been regularly paying her share of the rent and debt and was shocked to discover that he had not been.
The tenants then say that on 5 February 2026, the landlord called again and gave the tenants and their whanau until 9 February 2026 to move out and return the keys.
The tenants say this termination was unlawful because the landlord tried to enforce the conditional termination clause in the Mediators 10 May 2025 Orde more than 90 days after the tenants first breach of the Order.
Once the landlord was aware of that breach, it withdrew the termination notice and applied to the Tribunal under s55(1)(a) of the RTA for termination of the tenancy. The landlord states that it would be inequitable for it to be penalised for giving the tenants leeway by not issuing a termination notice the first time the tenants breached the mediators Order. Further it had acted under a genuine belief the tenants first rent arrears repayment breach had been no more than 90 days prior to their most recent breach when it relied on the mediator’s order as the basis for a lawful termination. Additionally, as soon as it found that it did not have a lawful basis for termination of the tenancy, it withdrew the termination notice. Lastly, the rent records show recidivist rent breaches that the landlord has tried hard to work with the tenants to resolve.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not know it was not entitled to rely on the mediator’s order as the lawful basis to give notice to the tenants terminating their tenancy. As soon as it became aware of its calculation error, it immediately withdrew the termination notice. Its breach of the Order was not intentional, but it did lead to the tenants marriage being negatively affected as the male tenant continued to move out after getting all of his belonging packed due to the termination notice. He stated that he was so distressed about the unhealthy condition of the house and its impact on the health and wellbeing of his family and himself that he could no longer live there regardless. He was clearly distraught about being separated from his wife and children, but for his mental and physical health and wellbeing he said he could no longer live there.
The unlawful termination notice caused the tenants stress and inconvenience, but I cannot award them exemplary damages for this breach because the landlord has proven the breach was not intentional. I do however award the tenants $620.00 in general damages for the stress and inconvenience the unlawful notice caused. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenants have not wholly or substantially succeeded with their claims, their application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed.

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 5444751 — net $10,545.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 March 2026	$9,856.42		Rent arrears to 2 March 2026
Repairs: Board up two broken windows	$393.82		Repairs: Board up two broken windows
Repairs: Replace two broken windows	$1,130.91		Repairs: Replace two broken windows
Compensation- unlawful notice		$620.00	unlawful notice
Total award	$11,381.15	$620.00
Net award	$10,545.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,545.15

Claims and awards for application 5444751 — net $10,545.15 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 2 March 2026

Amount: $9,856.42
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 2 March 2026

Repairs: Board up two broken windows

Amount: $393.82
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Board up two broken windows

Repairs: Replace two broken windows

Amount: $1,130.91
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Replace two broken windows

Compensation- unlawful notice

Amount: $620.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: unlawful notice

Total award

Landlord $11,381.15 · Tenant $620.00

Net award

Landlord $10,545.15

Dismissed claims

Filing Fee — M Pollak 07 March 2026 __________________________________________________________________________________ 544475112
Healthy Homes Standards — Breach of healthy homes standards __________________________________________________________________________________ 54447518

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Rent arrears Property damage Filing Fee

Order

The tenancy of [The party] and [The party] at 43 Kingswood Road, Brookfield, Tauranga 3110 is terminated, and possession is granted to Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited, at 5:00pm on Saturday 7 March 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $216.00 (5897342-002) to Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited immediately.
[The party] and [The party] must pay Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited $10,545.15 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on Friday 27 February 2026.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, compensation and refund of the bond.
The tenants have applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the application fee.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation or general damages in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation or general damages, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation or general damages awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord provided rent records that prove the tenants have been recidivist in their rent beaches and that the landlord has given them several opportunities to repay their rent arrears in instalments an have delayed termination of their tenancy by putting in place a conditional termination order, not immediately enforcing the condition termination order when the tenants first breached the rent arrears debt conditions of the 10 May 2025 mediation order and trying to work with them to retain the tenancy.
The female tenant claimed the male tenant was suffering from mental health challenges, had taken control of the family finances and had assured her the rent arrears debt repayment sums were being paid in full and on time. She had been unaware that he had breached the mediated debt repayment plan and asked for the Tribunal’s leniency as she and her children had no where to go.
The rent records prove the rent arrears are still significantly high and that the tenants were in more than 21 days rent arrears at the date the landlord filed its application on 13 February 2026. Section 55(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) is quite clear, if rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed, the Tribunal has no discretion and must terminate the tenancy. It cannot take the tenants personal and financial circumstances into account.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy and the tenancy is terminated as at 5:00pm on Saturday 7 March 2026. The tenant was made aware at the hearing on 27 February 2026 that she had to have moved out and returned the keys to the landlord by 5:00pm on Monday 9 March 2026.

Are the tenants 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:
The dining room window was cracked when the boys were mowing the lawn, and something flicked up. The tenants accepted liability but were unable to pay the cost of boarding it up and then repairing it so agreed to repay the debt; and
The daughters bedroom window cracked when she was wiping the window. The tenants accepted liability but were unable to pay the cost of boarding it up and then repairing it so agreed to repay the debt.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have accepted liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the RTA obligations to the tenants?

The tenants claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is 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 might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Breaching any or all of these s45(1) 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. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain
The tenants gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to her attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances during the tenancy. The tenancy commenced on 8 February 2013 and is current.
The tenants and their whanau claim they have lived in what they described as damp, wet and mouldy substandard conditions for the majority of the tenancy, and say that the repair and maintenance work that has been done on the premise has been sub-standard and has not fixed the issues properly. Consequently, they have lived in an environment they say has made both of them and their children unwell, both mentally and physically and has also caused the tenants to separate as the male tenant feels he can no longer live safely in the current unhealthy conditions. He stated that he also wants his family to leave, but his wife has refuses to go as she has no other alternative accommodation to go to. He says their tamariki and their mokopuna don’t want to come to stay or visit them in the house because it is no unhealthy and that the landlord never addresses the core issues that make the house, rotten, damp unsanitary and mouldy
The parties confirmed the tenants made an application on 17 February 2026, under the Official Information Act, to obtain all the records held by the landlord about the premise. The landlord is not subject to the OIA but has processed the requested as a Privacy Act 2020 request, under which it has 20 working days to respond to the request. On 27 February 2026, the tenants had not received the information they requested, so did not have any evidence to prove their repair and maintenance claims.
The female tenant read out some dates repair and maintenance work had been completed in 2022, from what she stated was a work order report from the landlord. A copy of this report had been in the tenants’ possession since 2022 but had not been submitted to the Tribunal.
The tenants stated the landlord had all the information that would prove their claims and asked why I was not asking the landlord for the information the tenants needed to prove their claims. I confirmed that the burden of proof in on the applicant to prove their claims and as such the landlord had the burden of proof to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities and the tenants had the same burden of proof to prove their claims. It was not for the landlord to come to the hearing ready to prove the tenants claims for them.
The landlord claims it had addressed all repair and maintenance issues raised in a timely manner and that it records show only two open work orders that it is still addressing. These relate to tree trimming, that it is waiting for council consent to complete. The other is shower repairs that it is working through currently. Leaks and mould
The tenants claim that there have been multiple serious leaks in the house. The main one of which appears to have been coming from the bathroom/shower and has been affecting the wall of an adjacent bedroom. The tenants say the landlord keeps sending contractors, but the leak is never fully resolved. This they say has caused high levels of dampness and mould in the house.
The tenants did not have any photographic or video evidence to prove the existence of the leak nor did they have evidence of when they first raised the issue, how, what was done, when, what problems persisted and how or when were they investigated again or remediated.
The tenants also raised an issue with the toilet that they say continues to leak raw sewage onto the floor onto the bathroom floor when they sit on it or flush it. They say it is not sealed around the bottom. Again, the tenants did not have any photographic or video evidence to prove the existence of the leak nor did they have evidence of when they first raised the issue, how, what was done, when, what problems persisted and how or when were they investigated again or remediated.
The tenants also raised an issue
I find that the tenants have not proven these claims on the balance of probabilities due to insufficient evidence. The claims are therefore dismissed. Holes in walls, rotten floors and carpet
The tenants say the walls, skirting boards and flooring have rotted due to the ongoing leaks and the carpet has been water damaged also and is mouldy and damp. The tenants evidence is that they have been told that the walls, flooring, skirting boards and carpet cannot be fixed until the leaks are full remediated and that has never happened so they live in unsanitary, unsafe, mouldy and damp conditions. They also say they run dehumidifiers all the time, at their expense, and are not reimbursed for the additional power they have to pay for when they should not have to run these dehumidifiers 24/7 if the leaks and the damage they have caused were fully remediated.
The tenants have failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. The claim is dismissed. Breach of healthy homes standards
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 8 February 2013. Therefore, the premise had to be fully healthy homes compliant by 1 July 2024 but had to meet the insulation standard from 1 July 2019. A. Insulation
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to comply with insulation standard.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Houses constructed between 1978 and 2016 often had draped foil underfloor insulation, which was an acceptable solution for meeting energy efficient requirements in the Building Code. The healthy homes insulation standard permits an exemption to the current insulation standard requirements for foil underfloor insulation that remains in reasonable condition, where the landlord has compliance documents to prove the home was built to meet these requirements of the time.
If the foil underfloor insulation is not in reasonable condition (such as where it is damaged, ripped or no longer shiny) or it doesn’t meet the criteria for an R- value exemption, it needs to be replaced with new underfloor insulation that is not foil and that meets the required minimum R-value. Retrofitting or repairing foil insulation has been prohibited under the Building Act since 1 July 2016 because of the high risk of electric shock.
The tenants claim there is black mould in the insulation and that the premise is not fully insulated and is cold and damp.
The tenants did not produce any no evidence of this.
The landlord provided a heathy homes compliance statement which confirms that the ceiling insulation was last inspected on 4 November 2022, was in good condition and met the standard. It also confirms the underfloor insulation was last inspected on 30 October 2024, is in good condition and meets the standard. The wall insulation is unknown as the assessor was unable to access the sealed cavities. Wall insulation is not required under the standard.
The claim is dismissed for lack of evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities and the landlord has provided evidence that disproves the claim.

Did the landlord give the tenants notice to terminate the tenancy unlawfully?

Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
On 4 February 2026 the tenants received a call informing them that the conditional termination clause of the mediators 10 May 2025 Order had been triggered because the debt repayment due had been missed and the landlord was giving the tenants notice that the tenancy would be terminated, in accordance with the mediator’s conditional Order. The tenants say that they were told this was out of the property manager’s hands and that bailiffs would be called if the tenants did not move out immediately. The female tenant was on her way back from a holiday and was panicked as she had no way to immediately move out and nowhere for her and her children to go. She also stated that her husband was in charge of making regular rent and debt repayment instalments and she was not aware that he had missed any. She confirmed that she had been regularly paying her share of the rent and debt and was shocked to discover that he had not been.
The tenants then say that on 5 February 2026, the landlord called again and gave the tenants and their whanau until 9 February 2026 to move out and return the keys.
The tenants say this termination was unlawful because the landlord tried to enforce the conditional termination clause in the Mediators 10 May 2025 Orde more than 90 days after the tenants first breach of the Order.
Once the landlord was aware of that breach, it withdrew the termination notice and applied to the Tribunal under s55(1)(a) of the RTA for termination of the tenancy. The landlord states that it would be inequitable for it to be penalised for giving the tenants leeway by not issuing a termination notice the first time the tenants breached the mediators Order. Further it had acted under a genuine belief the tenants first rent arrears repayment breach had been no more than 90 days prior to their most recent breach when it relied on the mediator’s order as the basis for a lawful termination. Additionally, as soon as it found that it did not have a lawful basis for termination of the tenancy, it withdrew the termination notice. Lastly, the rent records show recidivist rent breaches that the landlord has tried hard to work with the tenants to resolve.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not know it was not entitled to rely on the mediator’s order as the lawful basis to give notice to the tenants terminating their tenancy. As soon as it became aware of its calculation error, it immediately withdrew the termination notice. Its breach of the Order was not intentional, but it did lead to the tenants marriage being negatively affected as the male tenant continued to move out after getting all of his belonging packed due to the termination notice. He stated that he was so distressed about the unhealthy condition of the house and its impact on the health and wellbeing of his family and himself that he could no longer live there regardless. He was clearly distraught about being separated from his wife and children, but for his mental and physical health and wellbeing he said he could no longer live there.
The unlawful termination notice caused the tenants stress and inconvenience, but I cannot award them exemplary damages for this breach because the landlord has proven the breach was not intentional. I do however award the tenants $620.00 in general damages for the stress and inconvenience the unlawful notice caused. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenants have not wholly or substantially succeeded with their claims, their application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5444751 — Rent arrears at 43 Kingswood Road, Brookfield, Tauranga 3110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5444751 — Rent arrears at 43 Kingswood Road, Brookfield, Tauranga 3110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord give the tenants notice to terminate the tenancy unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord give the tenants notice to terminate the tenancy unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions