What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5469481 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $2,447.12 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

How much money was awarded in case 5469481?

Rent Arrears: $2,357.14 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $39.98 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5469481?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5469481?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13716288-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5469481 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $2,447.12 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

How much money was awarded in case 5469481?

Rent Arrears: $2,357.14 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $39.98 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5469481?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5469481?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13716288-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

118A Williamson Avenue, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5469481 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5469481 — net $2,447.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,357.14	Rent arrears
Water rates	$50.00	Water rates
Replace smoke alarms	$39.98	Replace smoke alarms
Net award	$2,447.12
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,447.12

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5469481 — net $2,447.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,357.14	Rent arrears
Water rates	$50.00	Water rates
Replace smoke alarms	$39.98	Replace smoke alarms
Net award	$2,447.12
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,447.12

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $2,447.12 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
[The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] to reimburse [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $1,445.61 from the bond immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the tenants and landlords.
In very short summary, the tenancy dwelling is an older property. The tenants moved in and were dissatisfied with the state of the building, which they say was unsafe to occupy. The tenants moved out after 9 days. Both parties have filed claims against the other seeking various orders of compensation and exemplary damages.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records the tenants as [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]. The landlords are [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s]. I also note the tenancy agreement is signed and dated by the tenants on 8 August 2025, and the landlords on 10 August 2025.
The Tenancy was a 12-month fixed-term tenancy commencing On 9 August 2025, ending 9 August 2026.
The parties also completed a property inspection report, which has been signed by both tenants on 9 August 2025 (although one tenant has dated the document 9 September 2025 nothing turns on that, because both tenants confirm signing that document). The property inspection report, records that all areas in the tenancy were of an acceptable standard to the tenants. The page signed by the tenant also includes a certification from the landlord that there was at least one working smoke alarm in each bedroom or within three metres of each bedroom.
The tenants state that they were undertaking works to their own house, so they rented the tenancy to live in while that work was being completed.
On 12 August 2025, the tenants sent a text message to the landlord advising that they had fixed the fan on the gas fire, and seeking permission to throw away some of the oven trays and racks that were “beyond repair”, which the landlord confirmed they could.
On 14 August 2025, the tenants sent a further text message to the landlord wanting to know how to turn on the Internet fibre box, with the landlord responding that same day with instructions. The tenant noted that the Internet service provider was transferring Services to the house at 7 pm that evening.
Also on 14 August 2025, the tenants confirmed they had fixed the dryer switch.
On 15 August 2025, the landlord sent a text message advising that they had dropped at the front door, a replacement knob for the dryer and had found a spare power cord for the Internet modem. Mr Hand responded, advising that the knob fitted perfectly, but they were still having trouble getting the Internet working, and stating that “we need to catch up in person to discuss your house, I prefer we go have a drink or something somewhere. Let me know when/where suits you.”
In a subsequent text message that same day, the landlord discussed the fridge filtered water supply, the filter tap on the top sink being redundant, and that the smoke alarms installed were ”to code”, and discussed the smoke alarm requirements.
The next text message from 15 August records the tenant saying that they did not consider “It’s in your best interests to get into this over text or email” that they could have a brief phone call at a convenient time, noting “there’s a degree of urgency”. The landlord responded that they would call the tenant in the morning as they were out for dinner at the time, with the tenant replying that the call should not be too early, as he was exhausted.
The next text messages then from 11:38 am on 16 August, with the landlord records trying to call but there was no answer, and will try again later that day. The tenant responded that he was at a work meeting and would message the landlord when he got home, and they could speak after that. The next text is then from 4:14 pm on 16 August, confirming that they were free for a call.
On 16 August 2026, the tenant advised the landlord that they were not happy in the premises. As I understand matters, this was an oral discussion, as opposed to a text message communication. The landlord states they agreed the tenants could leave with three weeks’ notice if they wished to do so.
The next text message on file (after 16 August 2025) is from 18 August 2025. The landlord requests that the tenant check his emails, as they wanted a response in writing as to whether the tenants wished to end with three weeks’ notice, so they could begin advertising. The landlord also noted that a plumber had been contacted and would be confirming availability to undertake work at the property.
On 17 August 2025, the landlord emailed the tenant confirming what had been discussed on 16 August, which was an agreement to terminate the fixed-term tenancy early, and with three weeks’ notice.
Later on 18 August 2025, Mr Hands responded that he was unwell, had not checked his emails, but would have a look later in the day when he felt better.
Next text message is from the morning of 19 August 2025, again with the landlord seeking a response to the email around ending the tenancy early.
Mr Hands replied later that day, advising he was getting over a stomach bug, was rundown and stressed, and would reply to the email in detail. Mr Hands states that he was intending to vacate the premises by Thursday night, but would update the landlord.
The landlord then emailed on 20 August advising that they had tried to call the tenant proposing to take the tenant’s three-week notice from the date they respond to the email, looking to clarify the situation. The tenant responded that he ran out of time, but would ”get onto it”.
The landlord states the tenants vacated the premises on 21 August 2026 without providing formal notice.
The tenants say they moved back into their own home prior to the works being finished.
On 9 April 2026, the tenants filed this application in the Tribunal against the landlord. On 17 April 2026, the landlord filed a cross-application against the tenants.
A hearing was convened on 8 June 2026, in the Tribunal sitting in the District Courthouse in Auckland. Both tenants and both landlords were in attendance.

TENANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the tenants confirmed that they seek the following orders: a. General damages and exemplarily for renting a non-habitable house b. Refund of rent and bond c. Compensation for costs around storage, moving and related expenses

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the landlords confirmed they seek the following orders: a. Compensation b. Loss of rent

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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. Exemplary damages
The Tribunal must consider a claim for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.

ANALYSIS

Tenants claims

I will now consider the tenant’s claims as follows: Claim 1 - General damages and exemplarily for renting a non-habitable house
The tenants state that the situation at these premises was ‘extreme’. Mr Hands says that he designs engineering and waterproofing solutions, so has a degree of expertise relevant to these matters.
The tenants say that the premises were not compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards, in that there were some 15 holes in the exterior of the house and subfloor, causing draughts. In relation to the subfloor area, Mr Stewart stated there was no polythene on the ground.
In the bathroom, there was “bubbling” on the wall at the junction with the tiles, which was a “cover-up job”. Mr Hands considered there was a risk that if the shower was used, given the rot on a baseplate outside the shower, the shower would collapse. Mr Hands confirmed that he has not inspected under the shower.
Mr Hands also described some movement in the house, and that concrete had been poured to stop the movement.
Mr Hands states that an exterior drain has been overflowing which caused cracking to the concrete.
Mr Hands also refers to cracking on a concrete retaining wall by the exterior stairs, which he considered a significant safety risk.
Mr Hands states that he was warned by a plumber he was mentoring, that he should not lean on a particular sink.
It is disputed that the house is compliant. In short, the tenants state that the house either requires demolition or substantial work.
In response, the landlords dispute the tenants’ claims around the habitability and safety of the dwelling.
The landlords note that the tenants inspected the premises before they moved in. The house was empty at the time, and they signed the inspection report confirming it was acceptable to them.
The landlords dispute having any tenants raise issues, as the tenant claims, stating that the feedback from the last tenants were excellent.
In terms of the Healthy Homes Standards, the landlord states that an HHS certificate was provided prior to the tenancy commencing.
The landlords confirmed there was no ground moisture present at the time of this tenancy. The landlords state that they believed they did not need to provide a ground moisture barrier because part of the house was on a concrete slab. However, they now accept that was not the case, and confirmed that the ground moisture barrier has since been installed, and have provided the Tribunal with photographs supporting that.
The landlord states they tenants did not allow a reasonable time for work to be completed. The landlords state they were entirely open to remedying any issues, as seen by the fact that the work was undertaken quickly after the tenants left without notice. The landlords dispute that they were not contactable by the tenants.
Reference was made to the builder’s report supporting that the house is safe and compliant.
It is disputed that there is any leaking under the house, and that any cracking was more than aesthetic damage.
The landlord considers that the tenants have made many statements which are simply not true, particularly statements around what the landlord is alleged to have said to the tenants. Analysis
In this claim, the tenants seek general damages as well as exemplary damages for the premises not being properly maintained, in fact, being uninhabitable.
The starting point, therefore, must be to reach a conclusion as to whether the premises were of the standard described by the tenants. This will be an important finding because it will affect the other claims from both parties.
I began by noting that there is no expectation in law that houses be fault- free, or that work should not be necessary over the course of a Tenancy. Of course, it would be impossible for a landlord to make such an assertion, and equally, it would be redundant to place such a requirement on landlords, because it could not be met. Houses are complex structures; they contain many fittings and fixtures, as well as the structure of the house, that over time will require maintenance. The RTA anticipates that landlords need to maintain premises in that section 40 provides an obligation on the tenant to notify the landlord that repairs and maintenance is needed. Section 40(1)(d) requires that the tenant: notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs; and
There was an equivalent obligation found on landlords in section 45 of the RTA, which requires that the landlord maintain the premises. Section 45(1)(b) requires that the “landlord shall”: provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; and
Again the obligation on the landlord is to provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair, not an absolute state of repair, taking into consideration the age and character of the premises.
In this case, taking into consideration the photographs provided, the premises appear to be of a bungalow style, which I would estimate would have been built around the 1920 to 1940s. Of course, in those circumstances, surfaces are not as would be expected within a brand-new build; I would anticipate that the structures would be around 80 to 100 years old. The expectations of the landlord must be viewed in that regard.
But it must also be recognised that the situation in the tenancy would have been evident to the tenants when they viewed the property. The landlord’s evidence is that the property was empty when the tenants viewed it, which would have provided a very good opportunity to see if the premises met the tenants’ needs.
Based on the evidence available, I have no reservation in concluding that the premises were habitable. Certainly, the tenants have pointed to various defects in the premises which may or may not require maintenance, but they were not close to the standard where the premises would be uninhabitable.
In reaching that finding, I note the landlords have provided a written statement from Bruce Walker and Layne Chilman directors of L’ n B’ Construction Limited, dated 4 June 2026: L n B Construction is an established residential building company specialising in renovations, alterations and additions with over 25 years of experience working within the Auckland residential house construction industry. We have attended the house at 118a Williamson Avenue, Grey Lynn, to carry out minor repairs and maintenance as required. In our opinion, we found the house, like many other Bungalows in Auckland of a similar age, to be sound and fit for occupation, with no obvious signs of structural decay or other concerns. The exterior of the house was sound, with a few minor maintenance issues to be resolved, and the surrounding grounds, including the front concrete poured retaining wall and stairs, while showing signs of aging, were not of any concern to us and our supplied sub-trades and posed no health and safety concerns while attending the site.
I have no reason not to accept this as an expert building opinion, from an independent provider, which confirms that the premises were safe, and while some maintenance was required, the premises were otherwise safe and habitable.
Even taking into consideration the photographs provided by the tenants, I cannot see any basis to reach a different conclusion to the builder’s statement above.
The tenants have raised a number of particular concerns which I address as follows: a. The tenants have described some 15 holes in the exterior of the premises and subfloor, causing draughts, but no evidence has been presented supporting that claim. This claim would also not be consistent with the evidence from the independent builder. b. Is it relates to the bottom of the wall in the bathroom, and the windowsill, I consider that there was likely to be rot in those limited areas, but that would be a maintenance issue. There is no evidence before me to suggest that the shower would be unsafe, or that the premises would be uninhabitable because of those two areas of defects. c. I have no reason not to accept the landlord’s statement that the concrete slab described by the tenants was anything other than a slab floor for an extension. d. I agree the concrete steps and retaining wall, and around the drain cracked, but I do not consider those areas to be unsafe, again with reference to the builder’s report. e. As far as the plumbing is concerned, I consider it more likely than not that the landlord has appropriately appointed a Plumber when issues were raised by the tenants.
There is however, one area of breach which relates to the absence of a ground moisture barrier. The healthy home standards require there to be ground moisture barriers in the subfloor, and I accept that there was no barrier in this case. However, I decline to order exemplary damages because I am not persuaded that the landlord’s breach was an intentional one. I have been unable to identify any other detriment arising for which general damages could be considered for that breach. When the landlords become aware of the breach, they had a ground moisture barrier installed efficiently.
The tenants are concerned that the HHS report they received was not current. There is no regulated period over which an HHS report will be valid. The real question is whether, at any time, the premises comply with the HHS. It is possible for a house that was compliant to no longer be.
Returning to the landlord’s obligations around maintenance, as previously discussed, there is an obligation on tenants to notify the landlord that maintenance was needed, and then an obligation on the landlord to undertake that work. I note for example, the District Court decision of Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd 1 , in which the Court stated: [15] I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under s.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. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15].
In this case, while I accept that the tenants did raise some areas of defects, I am not persuaded that the landlord has been slow in acting on those concerns. I have summarised the text message conversation in detail above, that conversation shows in my assessment a responsive landlord. When issues were raised, the landlords either addressed them themselves, such as advising how to turn on the Internet router, and supplying a knob for the washing machine, or they contacted the relevant trades, like a plumber.
The law provides a remedy to a tenant who considers that the landlord has not acted with sufficient speed in resolving issues. If a landlord breaches the maintenance obligation to the tenant, then there are two broad remedies available: a. The tenants are able to apply to the Tenancy Tribunal for orders that the landlord undertake any necessary work (work orders), or b. The tenants can provide a 14-day notice to the landlord to remedy any breaches capable of remedy (which maintenance generally is), and if the landlord fails to comply with that notice, then the tenants can apply to the Tenancy Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy under section 56.
The tenants did not take either of those options.
What remains is that the tenants have not convinced me that the premises were not inhabitable, or that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises, taking into consideration the agent character of the dwelling, and the period for which it would continue to be used for habitable use. The result must be that this claim is dismissed. Claim 2 - Refund of rent and bond
The tenant’s position is that there should be full refund of the rent and bond.
The tenants say that the landlord had offered to end the tenancy early. Given that the landlord had not provided the necessary information and the breaches, no notice was needed.
In response, the landlords dispute that the rent and bond should be refunded. The landlord say that the bond of $4,400 was paid at the start of the tenancy, as was two weeks of rental in advance. No other payments have been made.
The landlord notes that the tenant did not set up power or gas in the premises, and given the limited possessions that they moved into the house, doubts that the tenants had intended to permanently move into the premises.
The tenants dispute that they had not intended to move into the house, noting they had paid rent of two weeks in advance and the bond.
However, the tenants agree they did not get the power and gas turned on as they were only there for 9 days. Analysis
I find this claim must be dismissed because the tenant has not established grounds upon which the rent and bond could be reimbursed. In short, there is no breach on the part of the landlord from which the Tribunal could order a rent refund. Claim 3 - Compensation for costs around storage, moving and related expenses
The tenants state that they needed to move out of these premises early, and move back into their own house. The tenants seek compensation for the following: a. Storage costs of $4,804.00 b. Van hire of $228.80
The landlord states it is not the landlord’s responsibility to pay for storage, noting that the tenants did not in fact move any furniture into the house when they were in possession of the premises. The landlords consider this to be a false claim. The landlord considers these are costs related to the tenant’s decision to move.
The tenants confirmed that they had already had goods in storage with their renovation, but they did have some goods in the premises, and were moving things in over time. Analysis
I find this claim must be dismissed.
These costs have not arisen from a breach on the part of the landlord. There is no basis to require the landlord to pay the moving costs for the tenants. The tenants elected to leave the tenancy early; they must therefore be liable for the moving costs. Landlords claims Claim 1 – Compensation
The landlord seek compensation for the following: a. Smoke alarm replacement $39.98 b. Damage to bathroom wall c. Damage to window sill d. Water bill $50
The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy, the landlord refunded $507.27 of the bond, to the tenants. For the purpose of this decision, I will deduct that sum from the bond and therefore treat the bond as $3,892.73.
The tenants say the smoke alarm was not installed when they moved in, and it is in the cupboard where the tenants found it – it was not installed on the ceiling.
In terms of the bathroom wall, the tenants say that this was a rotten wall.
Similarly, the tenant says that the window sill was rotten and the tenant was with him when it caused the ‘damage’ simply with his two finger.
The tenants agree to pay the water charge.
In conclusion, the landlord states that the smoke alarm was not in the house when they took possession of the premises back from the tenant, and the landlord disputes that it was not installed on the ceiling. The landlord states that she is aware that they are required, and the alarms were installed by the electrician.
The landlord also disputes that the bathroom wall and windowsill were damaged at the start of the tenancy. Analysis
The landlord has claimed compensation for a missing chattel – the smoke alarm. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”. The evidence is that a smoke alarm was provided at the start of the tenancy, and both parties agree that is the case. However, the tenant states that the smoke alarm was found in the cupboard when they took over the Tenancy, whereas the landlord’s position is that the smoke alarm was installed.
I consider them more likely situation is that the smoke alarm was installed. I reached that view because the property checklist which has been signed by the tenants, supports that there was an installed smoke alarm. Further I have not seen the tenants raise this with the landlord during the tenancy.
I have no reason to consider that the landlord’s evidence was wrong as it relates to the smoke alarm being missing at the end of the tenancy. This claim has been established, and the tenants ordered to compensate the landlord $39.98 for the smoke alarm.
In terms of the damage to the bathroom wall, and windowsill, while this claim is finally balanced, I decline to make any order. I consider the more likely situation is that there was a degree of rot to both the area of the wall by the shower box, and also on the windowsill. It is more likely than not that what the tenant did was to disturb that area of rot, which has probably hastened the need for maintenance. But those would have been areas that maintenance should have been undertaken now or in the near future; to that extent, I decline to order the tenant to pay for that work.
As far as the water bill is concerned, the tenants agreed to pay the claim $50. Claim 2 – Loss of rent
The landlords state that the first two weeks of rent was paid in advance, but no other rent payments were made. The tenants left the premises early, and as agreed three weeks’ notice should have been provided; the landlords therefore seek rent until 6 September 2025.
The tenant’s position is that as the premises were unlawful from the outset of the tenancy, they should not be liable for the rent at all for the reasons set out in their claim Analysis
The RTA confirms that there is a statutory obligation on tenants to pay rent as and when it falls due. The tenancy commenced on 9 August 2025, rent needed to be paid from that time.
In this case, the landlords have agreed that the tenancy could end early with three weeks’ notice. I find based on the evidence available, that the tenants did not give notice, and therefore it was not unreasonable for the landlords to take the approach that the three weeks commenced from 16 August 2025. That means the tenants needed to pay rent until 6 September 2025.
I have addressed the issue of the habitability in lawfulness of the premises above, and that accordingly addresses the tenant’s defence.
I order the rent arrears to be paid.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case both parties have applied for name suppression.
Given that I cannot find that either party has been wholly or substantially successful in their claims, name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5469481 — Rent arrears at 118A Williamson Avenue, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5469481 — Rent arrears at 118A Williamson Avenue, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions