What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5471510?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Silvia Eugenia Gomez Pineda and Luis Alonso Sandoval Gomez

How much money was awarded in case 5471510?

Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain-ra…: $3,442.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Plumber report of on o…: $80.00 awarded to tenant; Dishwasher Leak: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Pipe: $201.25 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5471510?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5471510?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13430517-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5471510?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Silvia Eugenia Gomez Pineda and Luis Alonso Sandoval Gomez

How much money was awarded in case 5471510?

Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain-ra…: $3,442.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Plumber report of on o…: $80.00 awarded to tenant; Dishwasher Leak: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Pipe: $201.25 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5471510?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5471510?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13430517-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

64 Nacton Lane, Avondale, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5471510 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5471510 — net $3,327.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 April 2026	$3,400.00		Rent arrears to 9 April 2026
Compensation: Failure to maintain-rats		$3,442.86	Failure to maintain-rats
Compensation: Carpet clean after leaky dishwasher		$175.00	Carpet clean after leaky dishwasher
pipe		$201.25	pipe
Compensation: Plumber report of on origin of		$80.00	Plumber report of on origin of
dishwasher leak		$1,000.00	dishwasher leak
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$1,800.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$3,400.00	$6,727.11
Net award		$3,327.11
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,327.11

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5471510 — net $3,327.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 April 2026	$3,400.00		Rent arrears to 9 April 2026
Compensation: Failure to maintain-rats		$3,442.86	Failure to maintain-rats
Compensation: Carpet clean after leaky dishwasher		$175.00	Carpet clean after leaky dishwasher
pipe		$201.25	pipe
Compensation: Plumber report of on origin of		$80.00	Plumber report of on origin of
dishwasher leak		$1,000.00	dishwasher leak
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$1,800.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$3,400.00	$6,727.11
Net award		$3,327.11
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,327.11

Order

The tenancy of Silvia Eugenia Gomez Pineda and Luis Alonso Sandoval Gomez at 64 Nacton Lane, Avondale, Auckland 1026 is terminated, and possession is granted to Yasho Kant Sharma, at 11:59pm on Sunday 3 May 2026.
Yasho Kant Sharma must pay Silvia Eugenia Gomez Pineda and Luis Alonso Sandoval Gomez $3,327.11 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

The landlord must engage a reputable pest control company to carry out pest control measures to eradicate the rat infestation inside and outside the premise 5471510, 54386442 as set out in Eco Homes Ltd NZ 17 March 2026 report and to decontaminate the tenants’ contaminated belongings and dispose of any of the tenants belongings that cannot be decontaminated. The landlord must give the tenants a rent rebate of $100.00 per week from 10 April 2026 to the date this process has been completed or the tenancy ends, which ever comes first.

Reasons

Both parties attended the face-to-face hearing on 9 April 2026.
The tenants made an application for early termination of the fixed term tenancy under s66 and 56(1) of the RTA, compensation, general damages, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord made a cross application for termination of the tenancy, possession rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing 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. 5471510, 54386443
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 in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, 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 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. However, section109(2)(b) of the RTA, bars a party from applying for exemplary damages for a breach of the RTA 12 months or more after the date of commission of the unlawful act.

TENANTS CLAIMS

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

The tenants claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(a), (ba) and (b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Section 45(1)(a) of the RTA requires a landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Under s45(1)(ba) of the RTA, the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A of the 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 5471510, 54386444 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 of these s45(1) obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00 for all proven breaches. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. Did the landlord provide the premise to the tenant in a reasonable state of cleanliness?
The tenants say the landlord has failed to provide the rental premise in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
A landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 6, even if the tenant has noticed the state of the premise when entering into the tenancy agreement 7. However, a reasonable state of cleanliness does not mean spotless. 8 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]. 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s45(1)(a). 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s45(3). 8 FTER Ltd v Knight [2015] NZTT Napier 1136 at[25]. 5471510, 54386445
A tenant might be awarded compensation if premises are offered in a generally untidy condition but cannot immediately terminate the tenancy 9. Unless the premise is uninhabitable, a landlord is entitled to reasonable time to remedy. 10
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 11, not commercially clean 12 , spotless 13 or to a hotel or motel standard 14. The better the premise and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected 15.
The tenants proved and the landlord accepted that at the start of the tenancy the property was not provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenants evidence proves the house was dirty and messy, full of rubbish from prior tenant(s). Further, every cupboard showed evidence of a rat infestation with rat excrement throughout the house. Additionally, the tenants claims there was a really bad dog smell in the male tenant’s bedroom that was hard to get rid of (even with commercial carpet cleaning), there were leaky windows, the stove was full of fat so the tenants couldn’t cook for first week, there was fly excrement all over the ceiling, broken shower tiles, the shower drain full of hair, a broken . shower hose that prevented the water coming out of the shower head which prevented the tenants showering for a week.
The landlord did not address these issues prior to the tenancy commencing because he and his wife were both injured and could not get to the premise, but accepted the issues that were set out in an email from the tenants dated 14 August 2025. In response, the landlord’s reimbursed the tenants for the $300.00 cost of having the caret professionally cleaned and gave the tenants a two-week rent rebate for the period 18 to 31 August 2025. Additionally, the landlord proved it paid for the tenants leaky washing machine to be fixed by their plumber at their cost when the issue was the tenants had not installed the washer correctly and that was why it was leaking.
The landlord produced evidence that shows the tenants accepted these remedies were accepted by the tenants as compensation for the landlord’s breach of the fire alarm regulations and failure to provide the premise in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
I find that the parties agreed on remedies that were mutually acceptable to compensate the tenants for the landlord’s failure to provide the premise in a 9 Re Grant NZTT North Shore TT112/87, 24 December 1987 at [10]-[11]. 10 FTER Ltd v Knight [2015] NZTT Napier 1136 at[26]. 11 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 12 Mills v kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 at [15]-[17]. 13 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]; Herbert v Garton [2013] NZTT Hastings 237 at [42]; Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [206] NZTT Auckland 3149 at [6]. 14 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 15 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. 5471510, 54386446 reasonably clean and tidy condition and therefore, dismiss the tenants claim for compensation, because the landlord did not intentionally fail to provide the premise in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, also the exemplary damages under this head of claim.
I note the landlord used a letting agent to let the house, but chose to manage it himself with his wife, and not to use the letting agent as a property manager until he and his wife recovered from their injuries. Had he engaged the letting agent to manage the property while he was not medically fit to do so, the house would have been presented at the start of the tenancy in the lawfully required condition.

Did the landlord breach the smoke alarms regulations?

Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA states the landlord “shall comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A”.
The tenants claim the rental premise had no working smoke alarm at the start of the tenancy as there was only one alarm in the main bedroom but it did not have a battery, so it did not work.
Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) website, www.fire.org, confirms both landlords and tenants take some responsible for smoke alarms as follows: a. Landlords must ensure smoke alarms: i. are working at the start of each new tenancy; ii. remain in working order during the tenancy; and iii. That are not working are replaced with photoelectric smoke alarms. b. Tenants must: i. not damage, remove, or disconnect a smoke alarm; ii. replace dead batteries during the tenancy if there are older-style smoke alarms with replaceable batteries; and
The tenants let the landlord know about the problem with the smoke alarm on 9 August 2025, as they were concerned because the house is next to a petrol station so is at higher risk than other houses of being exposed to fire.
The parties confirmed the landlord had remedied the issue by 13 August 2025, by ensuring the house has five working and fully compliant smoke alarms (four more than legally required) within five days of the tenants reporting the issue.
I am satisfied that the tenants have proven that the landlord failed to ensure the premise was fitted with a working smoke alarm that meet the regulatory requirements referred to in the RTA at the start of the tenancy and it took five days before it was fully compliant. 5471510, 54386447
The tenancy agreement also fails to record how many smoke alarms there are, where they are located, when they were last tested and when they expire. Therefore, the tenants were not aware until the tenancy commenced the smoke alarm had not been tested at the start of the tenancy and was not working. This is a breach of s45(1)(ba),(c) and 13A (1CA)(b) of the RTA.
The landlord says the tenants agreed that the two weeks rent rebate recognised this breach as well as the s45(1)(a) of the RTA breach. The tenants deny this and say the compensation agreed was for the s45(1)(a) of the RTA breaches only. The landlord did not produce any evidence that proves on the balance of probabilities the parties agreed the two weeks rent rebate compensated the tenants for this breach as well as the s45(1)(a) breaches. However, it is reasonable to consider the $15.00 compensation I would have awarded, for the breach of the landlord’s obligations to provide working smoke alarms for 5 days, to have been offset by the landlord paying for the tenants washing machine to have been installed correctly by tier plumber when this cost was the tenants’ responsibility.
I am also satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages as I find the breach to be intentional as the landlord should have tested the smoke alarms and recorded the date of the test and all the other statutorily required information in the tenancy agreement and did not. Therefore, for the first five days of the tenancy, the tenants’ lives were at risk because the smoke alarm had not been tested and was not working. Further, the landlord could have taken a battery to the tenants or asked the tenants to instal a working battery and deduct the amount from the next rent payment but did not.
A maximum of $7,200.00 exemplary damages, as set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA is for all s45 of the RTA breaches and as such, the quantum ordered under this section will be set out at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this order.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premise?

The tenants gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. A. Rats
The tenants provided evidence of rat droppings in cupboards, the hot water cupboard, and other areas of the house at the star of the tenancy. They say they did not raise the rat droppings on the start date of the tenancy as there were so many other issues to address and at that stage, they were not aware at how infested the premise was with rats.
The parties agree the first time the tenants raised the issue of rat droppings was in an 11 August 2025 email and text (but not in a formal 14-day notice). 5471510, 54386448
The landlord says they addressed the tenants concern in a timely manner when their handyman went to premise on 13 August 2025 to do some maintenance and gave the tenants a $11:00 packet of four Ratsak rat baits in wax. The landlord and his wife were unable to go to the house to investigate the extent of the rat issue, as they were both injured. They have produced medical evidence that proves they both had injuries that significantly reduced their mobility, just prior to the start of the tenancy for a period of at least three months.
The landlord says his handyman wanted to install the rat bait, but tenants wanted to do this themselves and that if the handyman had installed the rat bait, he would have ensured it was placed correctly to eradicate the issue. He also stated he doubted whether the tenants even used the bait they were given.
The tenants confirm they did install the rat bait, but it was not enough or strong enough to kills the number of rats infesting the house. The landlord say if they had needed more rat bait they could have asked, and they did not do so.
The parties confirmed that no rat traps were provided to the tenants and that the handyman had seen rat droppings in the premise before the cleaning was done at the beginning of the tenancy and had reported this to the landlord. Therefore, the landlord was aware of a rat issue being in existence prior to these tenants moving into the house. However, during the hearing the landlord and his wife accused the tenants of leaving food in the floor on the kitchen and all over the bench and stated this is what caused the rat infestation. Aside from there being straightforward evidence of rats being in residence at the start of the tenancy, the routine inspection photograph from December 2025 relied on by the landlord to support his assertion, shows a cluttered bench top in the kitchen full of appliance and herbs and species in jars but no food on the floor. It also shows protein powder and something in a bag and container on the bench that may have been defrosting at the time, but nothing left out that would be attracting rats. The landlord and his wife took immense pleasure in showing me how clear the kitchen bench was when they lived in the house and how they had never had rodent problems. While I accept, they kept a clear, clean and tidy kitchen when they lived at the premise, there had been other tenants living n the premise after them that had obviously encountered a rat issue for a reason that is unclear.
The tenants confirm that on 14 August 2025 the female tenant contacted the letting agent and the landlord about the start of tenancy issues they were including rubbish everywhere around the premise, full bins that had faces stained disposable nappies in them and rat/mice excrement all through the hot water cupboard and other cupboards. The landlord went to see the letting agent, but she and Harcourts had no authority to manage the property, apologise for the condition of it at the start of the tenancy, or to address any of the issues raised. The letting agent told the tenants she would email the landlord about these issues and that is all she could do. 5471510, 54386449
The tenants say the landlord did not respond to this email and nothing further was done about the continued rat issue.
The landlord says he did not respond until 20 August 2025, as the landlord had a fracture, and his wife was having surgery at the time the tenant and the letting agent had emailed them.
The tenants say after they used the rat poison, the rats became incredibly thirsty, and one chewed through the dishwasher pipe because the landlord had not adequately investigated and addressed the serious rat infestation issue.
The rat issues continued to multiply, and the tenants’ produced photographs of rats that had fallen out of the ceiling cavity and drowned in the laundry sink as well as rat excrement throughout the house and among all their belongings.
On 3 December 2025, the landlord conducted the only routine property inspection and must have been able to see evince of the rat infestation and the smell of the rat excrement.
On 27 January 2026, the tenants raised the issue of flooding in the kitchen with the landlord.
On 1 February 2026, the landlord’s handyman (a qualified builder) took dishwasher out and found the pipe of the dishwasher was damaged and every time the kitchen sink was used water flooded the floor. Before he went to pick up parts to fix the pipe he asked the tenants if they used the dishwasher, and they said they did not use the dishwasher, so he purchased a plug and blocked that section of the pipe off so the dishwasher could no longer be used. When he spoke to the male tenant, he told the male tenant there was a possibility the hosepipe had been chewed by the rats and he recommended rat bait be placed behind dishwasher, fridge, washing machine in garage and anywhere else rats could chew to try to get to water. The landlord stated that he did not believe that this proves his handyman was of the opinion the chewed pipe was indicative of a rat infestation. However, the handyman placed a small rat bait behind the dishwasher and gave the remainder of the packet of four to the tenants to place where they wanted.
The landlord refuses to accept there was a rat issue and says the female tenant was doing catering work from home and that was what attracted the rats. He did not provide any evidence to support this claim, and the evidence provided by the tenant disproved this as a reason for the growing rat infestation issues. The landlord also claimed he had no further communication about rats from the tenants from 14 August 2025 to 27 January 2026, after he had given them a rent rebate of two weeks, until he had raised overdue rent with them on 1 March 2026 in a 14-day notice and that was also when the tenants made their application to the tribunal to end the tenancy early. Further, he claims the tenants only raise rat issues when they want money from him or as a reason to get out of the fixed term tenancy early. The evidence proves the rat infestation issue persisted after 14 August 2025 and resulted in dishwasher pipe and kitchen flooding issue as the 5471510, 543864410 rat problem grew. The evidence does not support these claims. The tenants raised the issue on 1 February 2026 when it was discovered the flood was caused by rat damage, the tenants made their application to the Tribunal on 5 February 2026 and the tenants say the rat issue was evident ion 3 December 2025 when the landlord inspected the house. A tenant does not have to continually raise an issue that the landlord is aware of and has failed to investigate and remediate fully.
The tenants say the landlord had been made aware of the issue and, they had continued to hope he would address it, but he did not, and it is still a major issue for them today as the rats continue to multiply.
Other than providing a few more small rat baits in wax, the landlord took no steps to have the rat issue investigated and addressed after the handyman’s discovery of the rat chewed dishwasher hose/pipe on 1 February 2026.
The tenants say they also informed the handyman that their clothes and shoes had been gnawn by rats and their belongings in cupboards were contaminated by rat excrement, which is dangerous to their health.
On 4 February 2026, the male tenant sent the landlord an email saying: “I emailed you last week about the kitchen, the same day that we noticed it. The person who you sent to fix the issue noticed the hose from the sink to the dishwashing machine had holes in it as if a mouse or rat had chewed though it. On top of the dishwasher there were also mouse droppings. The person you sent brought back some rat poison blocks but because of our dogs we are not comfortable using them. We urgently need you to schedule a pest extermination for the house and to also have the carpet cleaned where the leaking accumulated. Both these things need to be done as soon as possible”.
On 6 February 2026, the landlord sent the tenants an email accusing them of not informing him of the leak in the kitchen as soon as it came to their attention and that their failure to do so had led to long term water damage to the kitchen cabinetry. He stated that this damage was because of the tenants’ careless omission in not informing him of the slow water leak at the earliest opportunity. The landlord then arranged for a cabinet maker to come and investigate the damage to the kitchen cabinetry and the landlord says he confirmed the damage had taken place over an extended period from a slow leak and not from the damaged dishwasher pipe/hose. However, the landlord confirms that there has been no other water leak found that would explain his theory that the tenant’s negligence led to the water damage kitchen cabinetry.
In response, the tenant got a plumber, from Freeflow 2013 Ltd, to come and look at the damage, on 22 February 2026, and he provided a report that confirms there is a rat infestation in the house and that was the cause of the holes in the dishwasher pipe and the landlord’s delay in getting the leak fixed ( 27 January 2026 to 1 February 2026) led to the leak that flooded the dining carpet over those days, despite the tenants mopping u any water they saw when they were at home over that period. They both worked during the day. This report cost the tenants 5471510, 543864411 $201.25 and they seek reimbursement of that cost as they were out in a position where they had to disprove the landlord’s unfounded allegation, they caused the damage to the kitchen cabinetry.
The tenants also engaged Eco Home Ltd NZ to check all the walls and the ceilings for rats and it reported where the rats were and that there is an infestation that requires commercial pest control to eradicate. This report cost the tenants $80.00. They seek compensation for this report as well, as it is something the landlord should have done to investigate the issue himself.
I find that the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that the landlord knew about the rat infestation from 11 August 2025, when the tenants first raised it, and had it confirmed again as an ongoing issue when his handyman discovered rat damage to the dishwasher pipe/hose and rat excrement throughout the house on 1 February 2026. He took no steps to have the rat issue investigated at ether of these points, made up his mind it was a non-issue that a few small wax block rat baits could address and took no further steps to investigate if the issue may be more extensive than that and require commercial pest control.
On 17 March 2026, the tenants also engaged Eco Home Services Ltd to undertake a rodent investigation and write a report. The report confirms a “severe rodent infestation” and recommends “immediate action to control the infestation and prevent further damage to the property.” It states “there was evidence of rodent activity in the following areas: a. Inside the house, particularly behind the dishwasher, where holes in the walls were identified. These openings may be used to access or movement pathways by rodents; b. The hot water cupboard; c. The garage area, including the top of the refrigerator and around stored books; d. The ceiling cavity, which provides a warm and sheltered environment suitable for nesting; and e. The outdoor area surrounding the property is overgrown and bushy. This creates favourable conditions for rodents and contributes to increased activity around the home.”
The report recommends: a. “Urgent implementation of a professional rodent control treatment both internally and externally; b. Sealing of all entry points, including holes and gaps in the walls; c. Thorough cleaning and sanitisation of affected areas; d. Reduction of clutter, particularly in storage spaces such as the garage; 5471510, 543864412 e. Trimming and regular maintenance of outdoor vegetation to minimise rodent harbourage.”
The report quotes a cost of “$280.00 plus GST for a comprehensive rodent control treatment”. The tenants confirm that this report was only provided to the landlord via the evidence sharing process as part of this litigation due to their application having already been filed and the breakdown in the relationship with the landlord after his claim, they were responsible for the damage to the kitchen cabinetry.
The male tenant also confirmed that the kitchen cabinetry is made of made of MDF board/particle board that absorbs water and swells and that the tenants were not aware of the dishwasher leak until the day they reported it. If there had been a slow leak overtime from the dishwasher, that was being absorbed by the cabinetry, they had not noticed this.
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to investigate the rat issue and take appropriate remediation steps at the start of the tenancy and again when the rat damage to the dishwasher pipe was discovered along with evidence of a lot of rat activity behind the dishwasher, other appliances that use water and the hot water cupboard. I award the tenants a rent rebate of $100.00 per week in recognition of the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience they have suffered for the period 11 August 2025 to 9 April 2026. This is a rent rebate of $3,442.86 for the 34 week and 3-day period from 11 August 2025 to 9 April 2026. This rent rebate must be applied to the remainder of the tenancy up to the date the landlord gets a third-party pest control company (at his costs) to come and carry out commercial rat eradication processes and cleans all the surfaces where the rats have been and left excrement and to clean the tenants infected belongings and dispose of anything that cannot be decontaminated.
I also award the tenants reimbursement of the $201.25 cost of the plumbers report and the $80.00 for the Eco Homes Ltd report because the tenants used their initiative to check whether there was a rat infestation, where it was and what was required to address the issue and were put in a position by the landlord where they had to prove they were not liable for the $5,000.00 quote to remedy the water damaged kitchen cabinets.
I am also satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to adequately address the rat infestation and that the steps he took in response to the rat issues raised with him were low level and inadequate in all the circumstances. Therefore, I find it would be appropriate to award exemplary damages under s45(1) and Schedule 1A of the RTA because: a. The landlord is an experienced landlord, who had let the premise out before, and knew he had to comply with his s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations; 5471510, 543864413 b. The impact on the tenants of the landlord breaching its obligations to provide the house in a reasonable state of repair in all the circumstance was a significant loss of amenity they were paying rent to enjoy, a lack of sleep, living in an unclean environment with rat waste and other such sources of stress and inconvenience; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide the premise in a reasonable state of repair; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord is that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide the premise in a reasonable state of repair.
As the Tribunal can only award a maximum of $7,200.00 exemplary damages for all proven intentional s45(1) of the RTA breaches, I will address the quantum of exemplary damages for this breach at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA section of this Order. B. Dishwasher leak and water damage to carpet and kitchen cabinets
The tenants say the landlord failed to provide the dishwasher in a reasonable state of repair from 1 February 2026 to 9 April 2026, when it was rendered unusable, firstly by rat damage to the pipe and then by the landlord’s handyman.
I have already outlined in paragraphs [43] to [72] above how the leak occurred.
I am satisfied the cause of the water leak, the wet carpet in the dining area and the damaged kitchen cabinetry resulted from rat damage to the dishwasher pipe/hose that was connected to the water hose for the kitchen sink and that after the rats chewed though the dishwasher hose the tenants using the kitchen sink caused flooding to occur in the kitchen. Over the period 27 January 2026 to 1 february2026, when the landlord finally had the pipe/hose blocked off, there was considerable water damage to the carpet and kitchen cabinetry.
I am satisfied on the evidence provided by the parties proves that it was more likely than not: a. The dishwasher leak was not bad enough to be noticed by the tenants until 27 January 2026; b. The landlord had not seen any evidence of the leak on 3 December 2025, during the property inspection and his photograph of the kitchen from that inspection does not show any such damage; c. There have been no other leaks identified in the kitchen to explain the water damage to the cabinets and carpet; d. The landlord did not engage a contractor to come and clean the wet carpet or dry out the kitchen cupboards with a commercial heater, fans or dehumidifiers; and 5471510, 543864414 e. The landlord left the tenants living with wet kitchen cabinets and carpet and that is what led to additional water damage to these parts of the property; and f. The wet carpet has become smelly as the underlay is likely to have retained water and had not been exposed to dry out. Therefore, it could be growing mould under the carpet, despite the tenants paying to have the carpet commercially cleaned to remove the rat excrement contaminated water on 11 February 2026 at a cost of $175.00 after the landlord did nothing.
I award the tenants a rent rebate of $1,000.00 for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience from the loss of the dishwasher and having to live with damp rat excrement contaminated water from 27 January 2026 to 11 February 2026 and for having to live with the wet smelly carpet and underlay post the clean because the underlay had not been cleaned or dried and the water damaged kitchen cabinetry from 1 February 2026 to 9 April 2026, as these issues have still not been fully addressed. The landlord says he is waiting to make an insurance claim for the kitchen cabinets but has not stated whether he intends to make a claim for the carpet and underlay damage.
I also compensate the tenants for the $175.00 carpet cleaning costs they incurred after the dishwater related flooding.
Additionally, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for the $5,000.00 he has been quoted to repair the kitchen cabinetry. Firstly, I am satisfied the damage is a result of the rat related dishwasher leak that was left for 5 days, between 27 January 2026 and 1 February 2026. Secondly, there is no evidence to prove the tenants knew about the leak any earlier than 27 Janaury2026 and failed to report the leak. Thirdly, the damage had not yet been remedied and may be subject to an insurance claim, for which the excess is $500.00. Even if the landlord had proven the tenants were responsible for the damage, which he has not, he cannot claim for a loss he has not yet incurred and that might be for significantly ess than the $5,000.00 claimed. Other s45(1)(b) claims
The tenants claimed the landlord failed to provide the shower in a reasonable state of repair in the first two weeks of the tenancy. I find the landlord addressed these issues in the first two weeks of the tenancy and the tenants were compensated for any loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience caused when the landlord gave them a rent rebate of $1,700.00 for the period 18 to 31 August 2025. This claim is therefore dismissed. 5471510, 543864415
The tenants also claimed there was mould on walls and ceiling in garage. The tenants confirmed the photograph they had provided in evidence was recent, had not been shown to the landlord and that this issue had never been raised with the landlord. A landlord cannot address repair and maintenance issues that are not raised with him. The tenants’ claim is dismissed for insufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to investigate and remediate this issue in a reasonable time in all the circumstances . Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed two intentional breaches of s45(1)(b) that resulted in the tenants living conditions that were unhealthy and that caused them considerable periods of stress, inconvenience, and loss of the amenity the tenants were paying rent to enjoy. The landlord did not offer any rent relief to the tenant at these times.
I have also found the landlord has breached its s45(1)(ba) of the RTA obligations in that it failed to meet the statutory requirements to ensure the premise has the required number of working smoke alarms that have been tested and for which all the required information, pursuant to s45(1)(c) and 13A (1CA)(b) of the RTA, is recorded in the tenancy agreement.
I find the landlord has committed these three unlawful acts intentionally.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenant many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $1,800.00 exemplary damages to the tenants, being one quarter of the maximum penalty available. Breach of privacy/quiet enjoyment
The tenants claim the landlord has harassed them and breached their quiet enjoyment.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection two that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” 5471510, 543864416
The RTA further confirms that contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be 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.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenants confirmed that for the duration of their tenancy they have had contractors coming in and out to address various repair and maintenance and cleanliness issues that should have been addressed prior to their tenancy commencing and that this is the basis of their claim.
A tenant is required under their s40(1)(d) of the RTA obligations notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs. The landlord then has a section 45(1) of the RTA obligation to address these issues in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances. Contractors coming into the premise to investigate or remedy these issues raised are not defined as harassment or a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. The tenants have been compensated for this stress and inconvenience in the relevant s45(1) sections of this order above. 5471510, 543864417
The tenants claim is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities.

Should the tenancy be terminated earlier than the end of the fixed term?

The tenants want to end the fixed term early and have made an application to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy under two separate provisions of the RTA, being s66 and s56(1) of the RTA.
The male tenant confirmed at the start of the hearing he had wanted to apply for termination of the tenancy under s56(1) of the RTA as well as s66 of the RTA. The landlord objected to me hearing this claim. The tenants evidence clearly shows the tenants sought advice from Tenancy Services, prior to making their application to the Tenancy Tribunal, and that Tenancy Services had advised the tenants to apply under both sections of the RTA.
The Notice of hearing does not accurately record the dual termination of tenancy claims in the summary list. I accept the tenants thought they had made this claim clear in their application and evidence and agreed to hear this claim as well as their reduction of fixed term tenancy claim.
The landlord also seeks termination of the tenancy, pursuant to s55(1)(a) of the RTA, claiming the rent was 21 days or more in arrears at the date of the landlord’s application to the Tenancy Tribunal, being 18 March 2026. However, the tenants’ claims are such that they may have an equitable offset to the landlord’s rent arrears claim. As such, I was unable to consider this landlord termination of tenancy claim until I had ascertained which of the tenants’ claims were proven on the balance of probabilities and whether any remedies awarded reduced the rent arrears to below the level where s55(1)(a) of the RTA applies.
Because both parties wanted to end the tenancy, I sought to mediate an agreed end date by consent. The tenants were agreeable to this, but the landlord refused to agree to a mutually acceptable end date. Therefore, I was unable to get agreement by consent and therefore heard the parties’ evidence in relation to the three termination of tenancy claims. A. Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?
The tenants entered a fixed term tenancy that commenced on 9 August 2025 and is not due to end util 8 August 2026.
The tenants consider continuing the tenancy to be untenable for both parties and want the tenancy to end.
They claim that there was an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances that justifies the Tribunal ending the tenancy under s66 of the RTA. 5471510, 543864418 The law related to reduction of fixed term tenancy
Parties enter a fixed term tenancy for security. For tenants this is security of tenure; they can be sure they have a home for at least the agreed term. For landlords it is security of income; they can rely on a set amount of income from their investment.
If a tenant wishes to default on that contract, and the landlord accepts the repudiation, then the tenancy ends on the terms agreed. In such a situation of surrender the landlord can stipulate the terms of early surrender, provided they are reasonable. Such reasonable terms can be to ensure the aggrieved party (here the landlord) be placed in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement.
If the parties cannot agree to end the tenancy, it is open to that party to apply to the Tribunal to reduce the term pursuant to section 66(1) RTA.
The Tribunal can reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced.
Section 66 sets a high threshold for reducing fixed term tenancies. The jurisdiction in this section is an extension to the doctrine of frustration found in the general law of contract. In most cases, s66 is used to seek a balance between the competing interests of applicant tenants, for whom significant obligations under fixed term agreements can create severe hardship when circumstances unexpectedly turn against them, and landlords, who have financial obligations and expectations of their own arising from the same bargain.
The term “unforeseen” is a legal term defined by reference to the reverse (“foreseeability”) in cases relating to negligence (in determining whether a duty of care is owed and what damages are reasonably foreseeable) and in cases assessing damages for breach of contract (also in assessing the remoteness of damage). In both contexts, there is a body of case law which has established that: a. Foreseeability must be assessed objectively through the eyes of a reasonable person who has taken all reasonable steps to inform themselves of the circumstances; b. An outcome is foreseeable in legal terms if it is “liable to result”, “not unlikely”, “quite likely”, a “real danger”, a “serious possibility” or a “real risk”; c. The term “unforeseen” has few if any direct dictionary definitions, but by thesaurus is aligned with such concepts as “unexpected” and “without warning”. In a legal context, it must also be taken as the reverse of what is 5471510, 543864419 “foreseen”, thus being “not liable to result”, “unlikely”, “not a real danger”, “not a serious possibility” or “not a real risk”.
If the unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances threshold is met, the hardship test is what ultimately makes the s66 a high threshold for reducing fixed term tenancies as the Tribunal is tasked with balancing of the two parties competing interests. The foreseeability test is but one part of the overall test the Tribunal must apply. It is the part of the test that gets an applicant to the starting gate but is no guarantee that it will win them the race. Did the tenant prove they suffered an unforeseen change in their circumstances that justifies the reduction of the fixed term tenancy?
The tenants claim they have suffered a significant loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience as a result of a serious rat infestation at the premise that has breached their quiet enjoyment of the premise as they are kept awake at night hearing rats moving in the ceilings and walls, have had to live with flooded flooring/carpet in the kitchen/dining room and have had their belongings infected by rat excrement. They say continuing to live in the rat-infested environment is putting their health and potentially their lives at risk and they want the tenancy to end. Further, they say they have given the landlord reasonable time to fully investigate and remediate the rat infestation issue and its attempts to do so have been cursory and unsuccessful.
The landlord claims there is not a rat infestation, and the tenants have made this issue up to get released from the tenancy early as the landlord has raised issues with their cleanliness, the amount of clutter on the kitchen bench and the general unclean and unkempt state of the premise. The landlord also claims the tenants only raised this issue when the landlord first raised the rent arrears issue.
After fully considering whether the landlord’s failure to maintain the premise in a reasonable condition in all the circumstance can be defined as an unforeseen circumstance that justifies the early termination if the tenancy, I am satisfied that the evidence produced does not prove, on the balance of probabilities, the landlord failing to successfully address a rat infestation in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances was an unforeseen circumstance. A landlord not meeting its s45(1) of the RTA obligations is something that is a real risk and/or a serious possibility in any tenancy, as is a landlord not remedying such breaches in a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. Some unforeseen changes in a tenants’ circumstance that the Tribunal has found to justify the Tribunal reducing a fixed term tenancy are: a. An unexpected redundancy after the tenancy commenced; b. One tenant dying or becoming incapacitated after the tenancy commenced; c. Unexpected transfer of the tenant’s employment to another city/country; 5471510, 543864420 d. Suicide of a co-tenant; e. One of several tenants developing a serious illness (like cancer) and leaving the tenancy suddenly as a result; f. Three burglaries at the premise in a short space of time; g. A former partner moving next door in breach of a protection order; h. A tenant’s partner leaving the relationship; i. Detection of a former methamphetamine lab at the premise; and j. A child developing psychological problems connected with earthquakes that caused substantial damage to the property.
As such, I find the landlord’s failure to successful resolve the rat infestation in a timely manner is not an unforeseen circumstance that would justify the ending of the tenancy early under s66 of the RTA.
This claim is therefore dismissed. B. Should the tenancy be terminated pursuant to s56(1) of the RTA?
The tenants claim the rat infestation was so severe and ongoing that it would be that the landlord’s breach is of its s 45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable for the Tribunal to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
Section 56(1) of the RTA states: On an application made to it under this section by the landlord or the tenant, the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— (a) the other party has committed a breach of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement (including provisions relating to the payment of rent) or of this Act; and (b) in the case of a breach capable of remedy,— (i)the applicant gave to the other party a notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of and requiring the other party to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days commencing with the day on which the notice was given; and (ii)the other party failed to remedy the default within the required period; and (c) that the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the tenants must first serve a notice on the landlord requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the landlord has failed to do so. 5471510, 543864421
The landlord says the tenants never served him with a 14-day notice about the rat infestation, and therefore he was denied the opportunity to address the rat infestation in a 14-day period. Therefore, the tenants have not met the requirement of s56(1)(b)(i) of the RTA.
I am satisfied that the tenant did raise with the landlord of the rat infestation and proof that the rat infestation had led to the water damage in the kitchen and dining areas of the premise, as well as an unhealthy and unsanitary living environment for the tenants, and that he took no adequate steps to remedy the rat infestation or the water damage to the carpet/underlay or the water damaged kitchen cabinets.
Despite the tenants not having issued a formal 14-day notice to remedy, I am satisfied the landlord knew about these issues, intentionally failed to adequately investigate and remediate them and in doing so has so fundamentally breached the terms of the tenancy agreement and his statutory obligations to the tenant to such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The tenancy ends at 11:59pm on Sunday 3 May 2026 and possession passes back to the landlord no later than 9am on Monday 4 May 2026. The tenants must hand back the keys by 9am on Monday 4 May 2026, have moved all their belongings out of the premise, removed any rubbish and left the house in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, or in this situation, in a similar condition to that they received it in. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent arrears?

The landlord claimed the tenants owed $4,250.00 rent arrears, to 10 April 2026.
The tenants disputed owing this amount and proved the landlord’s rent records were not accurate, when reconciled with the tenants’ bank records.
The parties agree $3,400.00 rent arrears were owing to 10 April 2026. Should the tenancy be terminated under s55(1)(a) of the RTA?
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. However, the tenants have proven claims to a value that has equitably offset the rent arrears owed. Therefore, the tenancy cannot be terminated under section 55(1)(a) of the RTA.
This claim is dismissed for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. 5471510, 543864422

Should the bond be refunded to the landlord?

The has no justifiable claim over the bond. Equally, the tenancy has not ended yet and the landlord may have a justifiable claim over some or all of the bond if the tenant fails to hand the premise back in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, or if any chattels are broken or missing , or if there is any damage to the premise for which the tenants are found to be responsible.
The bond will remain with the Bond Centre until the tenancy has ended and the landlord has taken possession of the property and assessed whether there are grounds to make any claims against the bond.

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. 5471510, 543864423
The landlord claims the tenants are responsible for the damage to the kitchen cabinetry and that the damage from the tenants’ careless omissions and is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant has disproved liability for the damage, for reasons set out in paragraphs [43] to [80] above.
The landlord’s claim for $5,000.00 damages is dismissed for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities.

OTHER CLAIMS

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 substantially succeeded with their claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because Yasho Kant Sharma has not wholly or substantially succeeded with his claims I dismiss his claim for reimbursement of his filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5471510 — State of repair at 64 Nacton Lane, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5471510 — State of repair at 64 Nacton Lane, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord breach the smoke alarms regulations?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premise?

Should the tenancy be terminated earlier than the end of the fixed term?

How much is owed for rent arrears?

Should the bond be refunded to the landlord?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord breach the smoke alarms regulations?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premise?

Should the tenancy be terminated earlier than the end of the fixed term?

How much is owed for rent arrears?

Should the bond be refunded to the landlord?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions