Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5478290 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 139 Wyllie Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025
Decided 20 Apr 2026 · Published 20 Apr 2026 · Application 5478290
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
- [The tenant/s] to pay Five Am Property Management Limited As Agent For Mingnian Tony Wu $797.61 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Five Am Property Management Limited As Agent For Mingnian Tony Wu: $797.61 [The tenant/s]: $1,802.39
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- This is a landlord application and a tenant cross application.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond, and claims the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment, failed to maintain the property, and breached healthy homes standards. Landlord claims:
How much is owed for rent and water rates?
- The tenancy ended on 19 December 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
- The rent arrears were $377.00, and the water bills were $168.36.
- There is no dispute from the tenant regarding the rent arrears and water bills.
- I am satisfied that the landlord had proven their claim for rent arrears and water bills.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii) -(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1) (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
- The tenant did not return the keys, which is not disputed.
- The landlord provided an invoice for $224.25 for the cost of the replacement key and garage door remote.
- The amount ordered is proved. Tenant claims: Water leaks
- [The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide, and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety
- Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenant says that the landlord has breached these standards as the house had a long-standing water leak in the bedroom, mould issues in the bathroom and bedroom, and broken heat pump.
- There is no dispute that the window in one of the bedrooms had a serious leaking issue. The tenant advised the landlord of the leak on 21 May 2024, and the owner came and resealed the window.
- On 19 September 2024, the tenant contacted the landlord to advise that the window is still leaking. The owner had the window replaced with new joinery.
- The landlord claims that he did not hear from the tenant again until 12 November 2025 when he was sent a video showing water pouring through the roof around the window. The landlord sent a tradesperson to inspect the window leak. Eventually it was found that the problem stemmed from the internal guttering system and not the actual window.
- On 1 December 2025, the landlord had obtained a quote from tradespeople to complete the guttering work. On 22 December 2025, the work had been fully completed and the water leak resolved.
- The landlord says there was no breach as initially it was believed that the problem was with the joinery and only 14 months later, after other repairs, the gutter problem was identified and remedied. In addition, the landlord refers to the severe weather events that have plagued Auckland over the last few years.
- The tenant says that the problem was ongoing from the first time the landlord was advised on 21 May 2024 until it was finally resolved and repaired on 22 December 2025. The tenant says the landlord took a long time to fix the repairs and there was poor communication from him. Heat pump:
- The tenant says that she advised the landlord on 22 June 2025 that the heat pump was not working, and the towel rail was broken. The towel rail was fixed on 29 July 2025, and the heat pump replaced on 27 July 2025. There were a few issues with the new heat pump, but they were resolved after the tenant contacted the landlord on 19 August 2025.
- The tenant seeks compensation for not having the use of the heat pump during those weeks but has not quantified the level of compensation sought. Mould:
- The tenant says that the bathroom and bedroom where the water leaks were had mould problems.
- The tenant described an occasion when the cover fell off the fan in the bathroom and the fan cover or vent was covered in mould. The tenant was concerned about the mould in the ceiling, given the state of the cover.
- The bedroom had mould due to the water leaks and on the bathroom ceiling. The landlord considered that the mould had only arisen since this tenancy and that it is due to a lack of ventilation of the property by the tenant.
- The landlord provided a copy of the pre let inspection report and photos to show that mould was not a problem with the previous tenancy. Furthermore, the landlord was of the view that the “mould” the tenant saw on the cover was actually dust.
- Whether there has been a breach by the landlord depends on the specific facts, including how promptly and reasonably the landlord responded to the issues once notified, and whether any delays were justified by the complexity of the repairs.
- Under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The landlord must also comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (section 45(1) (bb)), which includes requirements for heating, ventilation, moisture ingress, and drainage.
- The landlord is not required to carry out repairs instantly, but must act within a reasonable timeframe, taking into account the nature and complexity of the problem. Complex or hidden issues
- If the water leak or pump issue was complex and not immediately apparent, some delay may be reasonable, especially if the landlord took steps to investigate and resolve the problem as soon as possible.
- The Tribunal recognises that some repairs may take longer if the cause is not obvious or if specialist parts or tradespeople are required. Mould
- If mould developed as a result of the water leak or pump issue, and the landlord failed to address the underlying cause or delayed unreasonably, this may be a breach.
- If the landlord responded promptly and reasonably, and the mould was dealt with, it may not be a breach. Compensation and exemplary damages
- Compensation may be awarded if the tenant suffered actual loss (e.g., loss of amenity, costs, or health impacts) as a result of a proven breach.
- I consider that the tenant has suffered a loss of amenity by not having a heat pump for at least two weeks in the winter months. The tenants talk about how cold the property was and how uncomfortable the home was at that time. While I accept there is a differing opinion of the time the tenants were without a heat pump, I consider a nominal amount of compensation should be given for the loss of the heat pump in winter. I am awarding the tenant $200.00 in compensation. Had the heat pump been unavailable in warmer months of the year it is unlikely that I would award compensation.
- Exemplary damages can only be awarded if the landlord’s breach was intentional (section 109(3) RTA). If the delays were due to genuine difficulty in diagnosing or fixing the problem, and the landlord acted in good faith, exemplary damages are unlikely to be appropriate.
- The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain the property and breached the Healthy Homes Standards, seeking compensation and exemplary damages. The evidence shows there were issues with a water leak and a heat pump that took some time to resolve, due to the complexity of the problem and the need for extensive investigation and repairs. Mould developed in the bathroom during this period.
- The landlord is required to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. However, the law recognises that some repairs, particularly where the cause is not immediately apparent, may take longer to resolve. The key issue is whether the landlord acted promptly and reasonably once notified of the problem.
- I am satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and repair the issues as soon as practicable, given the complexity of the problem. There is no breach of the landlord’s obligations, so exemplary damages are not awarded. Summary:
- A breach only occurs if the landlord failed to act promptly and reasonably. If delays were due to genuine complexity and the landlord acted in good faith, there is likely no breach. Compensation may be awarded for actual loss if there was a breach, but exemplary damages require intentional conduct. Standard of proof:
- As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the tenant) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
- As noted 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. Unlawful entry:
- [The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
- A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenant says that the owner would turn up unannounced at the property to do repairs and maintenance. The landlord totally rejects this statement and says the owner is very aware of his obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and always notifies the tenant if he needed to come to the property.
- The landlord said that generally he would give the tradespeople the tenants details so that they can arrange suitable times to attend the property.
- The tenant recalls an occasion when she was in bed, and she heard the landlord in the bathroom with a tradesperson fixing the towel rail. The tenant says that no notice was given for that visit and that the landlord let himself in.
- The landlord provided email/text messages between the parties regarding the repairs to the heat pump and towel rail. It is clear that there were plans made and changed regarding the arrangements. Furthermore, the landlord points out that the owner does not have a key to enter the property and on this day one of the other tenants let him in.
- Where there is a conflict in the evidence, the Tribunal must decide the case on the balance of probabilities. In this instance, I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord entered the premises without proper notice or consent. The evidence provided by the landlord supports that notice was given and arrangements were made. Accordingly, I find that the tenant has not established a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act in relation to unlawful entry. Breach Quiet Enjoyment:
- [The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
- A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
- The law requires landlords to respect the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises, as set out in section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Regular inspections are permitted, but they must be reasonable in frequency and purpose.
- The landlord carried out five inspections over a 12-month period, in response to complaints from neighbours about the tenant and her family. While tenants are entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises, landlords are also entitled to carry out regular inspections to ensure the property is being properly maintained, particularly where there are concerns.
- Five inspections in a year are not, in itself, excessive or unreasonable, and does not amount to a breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. There is no evidence that the inspections were conducted in a manner that was harassing or otherwise unlawful.
- The Tribunal has recognised that landlords are entitled to ensure the property is being looked after, especially when there are concerns raised (see McArthur and ors v Landlord NZTT 4320786).
- However, inspections must still comply with the notice requirements under the Act and should not be so frequent or intrusive as to amount to harassment or interfere unreasonably with the tenant’s use of the property.
- I do not find that the landlord breached the quiet enjoyment of the tenant. Bond/Suppression/Filing Fee
- Because Five Am Property Management Limited As Agent For Mingnian Tony Wu has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
- The tenant has partially succeeded with their claim and so I must reimburse the filing fee.
- The Bond Centre is to refund the bond and split it according to the order as set out above. -Landlord $569.61 -Tenant $2030.39 = $2600.00
- The tenant has applied for suppression of her name and details and as she has been partially successful, I will grant suppression. Furthermore, I see no public interest in publishing the tenants name and details.