What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5452852 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5452852?

Compensation: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,202.15 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $356.21 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5452852?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452852?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13896562-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5452852 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5452852?

Compensation: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,202.15 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $356.21 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5452852?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452852?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13896562-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5452852 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5452852 — net $758.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,202.15		Rent arrears
Water rates	$356.21		Water rates
Compensation for failure to maintain/loss of amenity		$1,800.00	Compensation for failure to maintain/loss of amenity
Total award	$2,558.36	$1,800.00
Net award	$758.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$758.36

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5452852 — net $758.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,202.15		Rent arrears
Water rates	$356.21		Water rates
Compensation for failure to maintain/loss of amenity		$1,800.00	Compensation for failure to maintain/loss of amenity
Total award	$2,558.36	$1,800.00
Net award	$758.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$758.36

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the landlord and the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord was represented by [Property Managers].
[Tenant 1] represented both herself and her husband, [Tenant 2], and confirmed that she had authority to do so. Background
This tenancy began of a large 4-bedroom home in Titirangi began on 24 December 2019. At that stage the tenants were not named on the tenancy agreement but became the named tenants when the named tenants moved out and assigned the tenancy to them, with the landlord’s consent.
The tenants have lived at the property ever since and at the time the tenancy ended were living with [details redacted] (7 people in total) and their two rescue dogs.
The tenancy ended on 19 February 2026 after the landlords served the tenants with a 90-day notice and the tenants quickly found a new property and gave the landlord 21 days’ notice.
Both parties have filed claims.
The landlord has filed a claim for orders for rent arrears ($2,202.15) and water arrears ($356.21).
The tenants have filed a claim for orders refunding the bond and for compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain, retaliatory notice (amended at the hearing to giving notice without cause) and breach of quiet enjoyment. Onus and evidence
As with all claims that come before the Tribunal, the onus is on the party bringing the claim to prove their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities). The landlord’s claims
The tenants accepted that rent and water were owing in the amounts claimed (subject to their claim for compensation).
The orders for rent and water arrears are therefore made by consent. The tenants’ claims 90-day notice
The landlord’s served the tenants with a 90 day notice on 15 January 2026 on the basis that the landlord intended to sell the property.
In their application the tenants said that the notice was retaliatory, but at the hearing [Tenant 1] explained that the claim was in fact that the landlord gave notice without cause. She said that the property was never placed on the market for sale and appears to be tenanted as she accidentally received a water rates invoice on 15 April 2026, when the tenancy had already ended.
The tenants sought significant costs for moving including withdrawals made from their Kiwisaver to secure another tenancy and pay the bond and pet bond, and for the cost of having the tenancy property professionally cleaned as they were trying to move in such a hurry.
The landlord said that the property had once been the owners’ family home. However one of the owners is now suffering from a serious health condition that is difficult and costly to manage, and has caused the owners to come back to Auckland and to sell the tenancy property in order to pay for these expenses.
The landlord said that their company came to do an appraisal of the property to with a view to placing it on the open market for sale, but the property was in fact never advertised because the parties negotiated a private sale to family. The landlord produced a settlement statement confirming the sale in May 2026.
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.
Having reviewed the evidence I do not consider that the tenants have t proved that the landlord gave notice knowing that they were not entitled to do so. The landlord gave notice to the tenants that they were selling the property, and then proceeded to do so. The tenants have incurred moving costs, but these are unfortunately the usual costs of moving and have not been caused by any breach by the landlord.
This claim is not proved and is dismissed.
Although the tenant did not pursue their claim for retaliatory notice, I record for completeness that I would not have found the notice retaliatory in any event as the landlord’s motivation for giving notice appears to have been the owner’s urgent need to sell the property. Breach of quiet enjoyment
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenants say that the landlord advised them that the owners’ son in law was coming to the property to inspect various maintenance issues while they were packing and preparing to move.
The tenants said that the owners’ son in law attended with two other people, and that they all appeared to think that they were entitled to inspect the entire property which led to confusion and concern as they moved about the property. They said that they agreed to them inspecting some areas but not others and that they felt humiliated having people wandering through and inspecting the house while they were trying to pack and get things organised.
The landlord said that they notified the tenants that the owners’ son in law would be attending at the property and sent a reminder message to the tenants who responded saying “Lovely thanks”. They said that they were unaware that the owners son’ in law had brought more people to the property or that they had asked to inspect the property generally.
Having heard the evidence from both parties I accept that the tenants were not expecting more than one person to attend and it was alarming for them to find three people at the property who thought they were free to inspect the property generally.
I find that the landlord did beach the tenants’ quiet enjoyment on this one occasion. However, while unfortunate, I consider this to be a one-off misunderstanding rather than an instance of harassment.
In the circumstances I do not consider compensation or exemplary damages to be appropriate. Maintenance
Section 45(1)(b) RTA provides that a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, taking into account the age and condition of the premises.
Tenants have a corresponding obligation under section 40(1)(d) to “notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises or the need for any repairs”.
The tenants said that various maintenance issues were not attended to during the tenancy including: a. Two of the decks were rotten/slippery b. There was a mould and water damage following a burst pipe in the toilet of the self-contained unit c. There was a crack/hole in the exterior cladding of the self-contained unit d. An electric gate was removed and replaced with an inferior manual gate e. The driveway was damaged and a portion of retaining mesh was exposed
In submissions the tenant also said that the fireplace handle was broken for approximately five years and that the front exterior door was unusable for approximately seven months but these were not referred to in the tenant’s application and so I have not considered these issues.
The tenants said that they raised the issues with the previous property manager (who is no longer in the employ of the landlord), usually by phone, but that the requests were frequently ignored.
The tenants produced photos of the areas above together with copies of correspondence with the property manager/s.
The landlord said that the tenants did not raise any issues on TAPI (their online portal) and so it had been difficult for them to establish exactly what issues the tenant had raised as the property manager dealing with this property left in late 2025.
The landlord said however that the landlord has done considerable maintenance on this property during the tenancy and produced an expensive property expense report for all repairs and maintenance for the duration of the tenancy together with relevant invoices and inspection reports from April 2025 and December 2025 showing the condition of the property. Discussion
Houses do require maintenance and repairs from time to time.
If there are maintenance and repair issues that are not attended to at a tenancy property the best remedy for tenants is to serve the landlord with a 14 day notice and/or to file a claim in the Tribunal seeking work orders. The maintenance issues can then be investigated and resolved.
Otherwise, the Tribunal is faced with the difficult task of trying to establish (once the tenancy has ended) whether the landlord was made aware of maintenance issues and failed to do repairs within a reasonable time frame (and if so) what compensation should be ordered.
Having reviewed all of the evidence I find that that: a. The tenants notified the landlord of a hole in the crack/hole in the exterior cladding that occurred after waterblasting in late 2024, the landlord put through a work order in June 2025 but the work was not completed (it was not clear whether this issue was then raised again); b. The tenants notified the landlord that the electric gate was not working on several occasions, the landlord saw to repairs on each occasion within a reasonable time frame, but ultimately chose to replace the electric gate with a manual gate as they were advised that the location was not suitable for an electric gate; c. The property is surrounded by trees and it is clear that the decks required regular maintenance. The landlord did various repairs/waterblasting etc over the years although it is not entirely clear which deck areas were attended to 1 . The last waterblasting took place in November 2024 as proved by invoice, and while the tenant notified the landlord that one of the decks had been missed, no other concerns were raised. The decks appeared to be in tired but in reasonable condition in the inspection report done in April 2025 but they had obviously deteriorated to some extent over the winter of that year as evidenced by the photos filed at the end of the tenancy, and no inspection was done until December 2025; d. The pipe in the toilet of the exterior unit burst in September 2025, was repaired on 6 September 2025 and although there was some evidence of mould/water damage at the end of the tenancy in February 2026 there was no evidence that this issue had been raised with the landlord prior to the inspection in December 2025 where it was noted by the Property Manager who attended; e. There was a patch of concrete on the driveway where the retaining mesh was starting to show through but this appears to be a very small area in the context of the whole driveway area and is the sort of maintenance issue that a landlord could be expected to do on a long term basis.
I find that the landlord has failed in their obligation to maintain the decks and the hole in the wall. The crack/hole in the exterior was seemingly overlooked by the landlord but the impact on the tenants appeared to be fairly minimal. The more difficult issue was the decks, which the landlord did fix and waterblast, but the decks were fairly old and it does appear that these had degraded over the final winter and the tenants understandably had concerns about using them. I consider that it is appropriate to recognise the landlord’s breach with an award of compensation of $1,300 (just over one week’s rent).
I am satisfied that the landlord has not breached their obligations in respect of the electric gate, but it is appropriate for there to be an award of compensation to recognise that the tenants no longer had the convenience of an electric gate from May/June 2025. I consider the sum of $500 to be appropriate compensation in the context of the entire property.
The total sum of compensation ordered is $1,800. Filing fee and name suppression 1 The landlord produced invoices showing repairs to the deck in June 2021, waterblasting of deck in July 2023, and November 2024
As both parties have had some success, I have not reimbursed the filing fees paid (each cancelling the other out).
However, as both parties have each had some success I have exercised my discretion to make an order suppressing both parties names and the tenancy address.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452852 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452852 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions