What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5464752 about?

The tribunal order states: Bayleys Real Estate Limited must pay [The party] and [The party] $700.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

How much money was awarded in case 5464752?

Compensation: $700.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5464752?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5464752?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14216136-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5464752 about?

The tribunal order states: Bayleys Real Estate Limited must pay [The party] and [The party] $700.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

How much money was awarded in case 5464752?

Compensation: $700.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5464752?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5464752?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14216136-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12 Carrs Place, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5464752 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5464752 — net $700.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for failure to maintain	$700.00	Compensation for failure to maintain
Net award	$700.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$700.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5464752 — net $700.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for failure to maintain	$700.00	Compensation for failure to maintain
Net award	$700.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$700.00

Order

Bayleys Real Estate Limited must pay [The party] and [The party] $700.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Katrin Katafiasz and Clay Reeve.
This tenancy of a three-bedroom home began on 20 January 2025 and was for a fixed term of one year. Rent was $700 per week. The tenants moved in with their two children.
The tenancy ended on 28 February 2026 after the landlord gave notice and did not renew the fixed term. The tenant’s claims
The tenants filed a claim on 4 April 2026 seeking the following orders: a. Compensation and exemplary damages for failure to provide the property in a reasonable state of repair; b. Compensation and exemplary damages for failure to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair; c. Compensation and exemplary damages for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards; d. Compensation and exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment/harassment (both in regard to interactions with the landlord and with tradespeople); e. Compensation and exemplary damages for unlawful entry; and f. Compensation and exemplary damages for giving retaliatory notice. 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).
For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence filed or given during the hearing in this decision, but the parties can be assured that all of the evidence has been carefully considered. Maintenance
Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a landlord must provide and maintain the tenancy property in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the property.
This property appears to have been built in approximately 1950. It is a timber weatherboard home with a corrugated iron roof, timber windows and timber floorboards.
Section 45(1)(bb) or the RTA provides that landlord must comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The HHS set out various minimum standards for heating, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping.
The tenants said that they experienced numerous maintenance issues at the property, some from the outset and others that developed as over time. All issues were outlined in detail at the hearing. There was some cross over between maintenance and the HHS.
Houses do need maintenance from time to time and this is particularly the case with older homes. The landlord’s obligation is to see to maintenance and repairs within a reasonable time frame after being notified by the tenant (or after having found maintenance issues during a routine inspection). Whether or not the time frame is reasonable will depend to some degree on the particular maintenance issue.
The tenants produced various photos, timelines and correspondence in support of their claims.
The landlord produced ingoing photos, a routine inspection report during the tenancy and an outgoing inspection report, various invoices for maintenance work, correspondence with contractors and the tenants, a Healthy Homes report and related invoices and a list of all transactions for maintenance during the tenancy Claims not proven
Having heard all of the evidence I find that the following claims are not proven on the balance of probabilities: a. Mouldy curtains – I am not satisfied on the basis of the photo provided that there was mould on the curtains, particularly when compared against the landlord’s ingoing photo. b. Electric Heater – this was not working initially but was investigated and resolved in March 2025 and fixed under warranty after having being installed as a “top up” heater (in addition to the heat pump) prior to the start of the tenancy. They delay was due to the landlord awaiting confirmation that the repair could be done under warranty and prior to winter. c. Bedroom ceilings – the tenants said that there was evidence of prior leaks, rot and mould. While I accept that there have been some repairs and paint patches (which were acknowledged by the landlord) I do not consider that the tenants have proved rot or mould or that one of the bedrooms could not be used 1 . The landlord took steps to obtain a roofing report in response to the tenant’s concerns which suggested riveting ridging joins to prevent leaks 1 The tenants said they were not happy for their children to sleep in this room, but the landlord produced a routine inspection report showing a bed and toys. I make no finding about whether the room was in fact used by the tenants, only about the condition of the room based on the evidence produced (which the landlord then did) but did not note any actual leaks. I do however consider that the landlord should have taken steps to investigate paint that was flaking from the ceiling and consider this in the section below. d. Rubbish and landlord’s belongings – while there was a garden waste bin full of garden waste at the start of the tenancy this was quickly removed. There were a small number of items under the house (on top of the moisture barrier) but this area was fairly inaccessible, the tenancy agreement specifically provided that the tenants could not store items there. e. Holes in walls – these were cosmetic only (hole behind toilet roll dispenser not fully covered by dispenser and holes above French door in lounge from fixings for previous curtains being removed). These were fixed at the tenant’s request and although they were not painted the same colour I accept that they were repaired. f. Trees – the tenants said that the trees were not properly maintained. However the landlord produced an invoice for garden and tree maintenance just prior to the start of the tenancy and further maintenance during the tenancy at the request of the tenants (including liaising with Auckland Council for the removal of a nearby tree on Council land). g. Draughts – The tenants said that there were draughts which caused the property to be cold. The home is nearly 80 years old and has original wooden windows that shift and expand and contract from time to time. The HHS standards do not require windows and doors to be free of all gaps, just unreasonable gaps. The landlord had a Healthy Homes report done prior to the start of the tenancy and had all gaps over 3mm repaired/weather seals installed (invoice provided). The landlord also had weather seals checked/adjusted twice more during the tenancy (February and June 2025) before instructing a window specialist who attended on 30 September and 1 October 2025 who adjusted windows and installed draught seals (report, photos and invoice produced). In my view, based on the evidence provided, the landlord has acted appropriately to ensure that they continued to meet the standard. I do acknowledge that some paint has chipped away on some areas of the windows but do not consider this to be a breach. h. Dampness/mould – while condensation was noted on the windows (which is often the case if there is inadequate ventilation) there was very little evidence of mould in the property. i. Wooden floors – although not specifically listed as a claim the tenants raised the issue of a dark stain on the original timber floors and small places where there were nicks out of the timber. In my view these are fairly common issues that occur with wooden floors in character homes and, while landlords will usually sand and polyurethane floors every 10 – 15 years, minor deterioration will not usually be considered a failure to maintain. Claims proved
Having heard all of the evidence I find the following claims are proved on the balance of probabilities: a. Unstable garden gate – the tenants said that there was a gate on rollers but it seems unstable and unsafe, and it ultimately fell over on 11 September 2025. While the landlord had the gate repaired promptly when it fell over I consider that they should have investigated the tenants’ concerns earlier. b. Ceilings - While I have not found that the landlord has breached their obligations in regard to leaks/rot regarding the ceilings (which I have not found proved), I do consider that they should have taken the paint flaking from the ceiling more seriously as although this was minor and confined to small areas, it was an ongoing issue in the bedrooms, which could have been resolved during the tenancy. I acknowledge that the landlord was prepared to take steps to paint the ceilings towards the end of the tenancy but that the tenants did not want the disruption as the tenancy was not going to continue. c. Toilet seat – this was insecure but was not replaced until March 2025. d. Power socket – one of the power sockets had been pulled out from the wall at prior to the start of the tenancy and then poorly glued into place. The tenants were concerned that this was a safety issue so the landlord repaired/replaced the socket on 29 January 2025 (nine days after the start of the tenancy). While there is likely to be some wear and tear in older properties I do not consider that it is appropriate to leave electrical sockets in poor condition and in my view this should have been fixed prior to the start of the tenancy. e. Cracked windows – the tenants referred me to three windows that had small stress cracks in the corners and a fourth window that had a scratch and a tiny chip. In homes of this age it is not unusual for one or two windows with a small stress crack in the corner. Whether or not such cracks are a breach of the landlord’s obligation to maintain will depend on the size and number of those cracks and whether they are causing a draught or are a potential safety issue. Having carefully reviewed the evidence I consider that the landlord should have replaced the glass in the bedroom as that crack had a small split in two different directions and was covered in tape, and so a potential safety issue. The other windows with cracks were marginal. There is no breach in respect of the scratched window. The landlord did replace all four windows at the request of the tenants in October 2025. Compensation
It is unfortunate that the tenants did not bring a claim to the Tribunal seeking work orders during the tenancy, as these issues could have been investigated and resolved.
Once the tenancy has ended the Tribunal cannot assist in resolution of these issues and can only award damages for loss of amenity.
I consider that the landlord should have been more proactive regarding the issues proven. The tenants found the garden gate difficult to use and parked their car as far forward as possible due to their concerns that it would fall over and found it difficult to open and close. They were anxious about the cracked window in the bedroom that had tape over the crack prior to the windows being replaced and were concerned about the electrical socket and the toilet seat was annoying. The tenants also felt that they had to move their beds away from the areas in the ceiling where paint had flaked away.
These issues meant that the tenants use of the property was affected at various times. I do acknowledge that all of the issues were ultimately resolved except for the paint peeling. The landlord produced a report of all maintenance done during the tenancy which shows that they attended to regular maintenance issues.
It is difficult to be precise when making an award for compensation for loss of amenity. However, having regard to the size of the property and general amenity value, the rent charged, the impact of these issues on the tenant’s use of the property, and the time spent by the tenants liaising with the landlord in regard to these issues, I consider compensation of one weeks’ rent to be appropriate.
I therefore award compensation to the tenants of $700.00. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages may be available where a landlord has breached their obligations intentionally and the Tribunal considers that it is just to do so.
I do not consider that it would be just to make an order for exemplary damages in this instance. There was no evidence that the breaches were intentional. In my view the landlord was trying to their best to comply with their maintenance obligations without incurring unnecessary costs or renovating the property, and have simply fallen short in some areas.
I consider that an award of compensation is sufficient to acknowledge those breaches. Breach of quiet enjoyment/harassment
The tenants say that the landlord interfered with their quiet enjoyment of the property.
They say that two of the property managers were aggressive and intimidating and minimised their safety concerns, creating a stressful atmosphere during inspections/visits. They say that the third property manager did not get back to them which made them feel that their concerns did not matter. They were particularly concerned that the landlord was not open to discussion about installing curtains in the bedrooms (which had blinds installed) when their children were unwell during winter.
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 landlord said that there was no evidence of any aggressive and/or intimidating behaviour. They referred me to the correspondence between the parties in which the landlord attempted to address the tenants’ concerns.
Having reviewed the correspondence I do not consider that there is any evidence proving that the landlord’s agents have harassed the tenants. While there was considerable contact and interaction in respect of the various issues all of those interactions appear to be entirely appropriate.
The tenants also said that the coordination of tradespeople attending at the property was not well managed, and at times they were not given sufficient notice or appointments were cancelled last minute.
The landlord said they could find no evidence of the landlord not giving notice. They said that as far as possible their tradespeople liaised directly with the tenants to avoid miscommunication.
Having reviewed the correspondence I have been unable to find any evidence of attendances at the property that would amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment. I was unable to find any instances where tradespeople had attended without notice. I do accept one of the tradespeople cancelled last minute and arranged another day, but I do not consider that this one instance amounts to a breach of quiet enjoyment.
This claim is therefore not proven and is dismissed. Unlawful entry
The tenants claim the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant said that the property was being advertised for rent and they were in the process of negotiating dates and times for viewings. One of the tenants said that they arrived home on Thursday, 5 February 2026 at 10.15am and were shocked to discover the gate open and the property manager inside the property showing people around. The tenant said that they had not agreed to there being a viewing that day.
The landlord said that had understood from communication with the tenants that a viewing had been agreed at 10.00am on Thursday February 2026. They produced the following correspondence: a. Email from landlord to the tenants on 2 February 2026 asking if they could offer an open home on Thursday at 12.00pm (5 February 2026) and on Saturday at 10.00am (7 February 2026). b. Email from the tenants the same day stating that they could do Thursday
00 – 10.15am (5 February 2026) and Monday and Thursday the following week at the same time. c. Email from the landlord the following day saying “Thank you for that” and asking future viewings including the possibility of a weekend viewing.
The landlord also referred me to the correspondence from the tenants sent at
51am on 5 February 2026 (just after the tenant had arrived home and the property manager had left) stating: “We’re sorry for the misunderstanding this morning. It’s been an extremely busy back-to-school week, and we were expecting you to come by next Tuesday the 10 th ”.
I do not consider that the tenants have proved that the landlord has entered unlawfully. In my view the parties had been discussing arrangements for viewings on a week-by-week basis and there has been a simple misunderstanding.
This claim is therefore not proven and is dismissed. Retaliatory notice
The tenant said that they received notice on 6 January 2026 terminating the fixed term tenancy. They were notified that the last day of the tenancy would be 28 Februrary 2026 (which was the last day of the fixed term).
The tenant claim that the notice was retaliatory as it was given in the context of disagreements about maintenance matters, particularly the painting of the ceilings in the bedrooms. The tenants said that it made no sense for the landlord to give notice because they always paid the rent on time, had expressed a desire to stay long term, and the landlord readvertised the property for rent.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where a landlord gives notice at a time where there are live disputes about maintenance and/or other issues there is often a presumption that the landlord is motivated wholly or partly in response to the tenants exercising their rights. However that presumption may be rebutted if the landlord provides evidence of their actual intentions.
In this case the landlord said that the owner of the property was undecided about the future of the property. They said that the owner advertised the property for one week at an increased rent of $40.00 per week, and when they failed to find tenants at that price they withdrew the property from all rental advertising and placed the property on the market for sale. The landlord provided supporting evidence.
I do not find that the tenants have proved that the landlord was partly or wholly motivated because the tenants had exercised their rights. I therefore do not find that the notice was retaliatory.
This claim is therefore not proven and is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenants have had some very modest success but I must view that success in the context of the tenants’ overall claim for compensation (60% of rent paid during tenancy) together with exemplary damages.
Against that background I do not consider the tenants to be the substantially or wholly successful party and so have not reimbursed the filing fee and have not made an order suppressing the tenant’s names 2 . 2 See section 95A RTA

Tenancy Tribunal case 5464752 — State of repair at 12 Carrs Place, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5464752 — State of repair at 12 Carrs Place, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.