Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5490429 — State of repair at 54 Appleby Road, Drury, RD 1, Drury 2577
Decided 27 Jul 2026 · Published 27 Jul 2026 · Application 5490429
- State of repair
Order
- [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $2,978.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The Tribunal declares that the tenant is liable to pay 50% of the power charges from the start of the tenancy to the installation of a check meter which enables the charges incurred at the premises by the tenant to be quantified.
- The parties have liberty to request a further hearing to quantify the power charges to be reimbursed to the tenant if they cannot agree, such request not to be made before 10 August 2026.
- The Tribunal directs the landlord to arrange for a contractor to clean out the sceptic tank at the tenancy address the work to be completed by 5pm on Monday 10 August 2026, unless such work has been performed in the prior 6 months.
Reasons
- The parties attended hearings on 10 June and 21 July 2026. The property manager attended the first hearing only and was excused attendance at the second hearing. Parties and Background
- On 17 April 2026 the tenant applied to the Tribunal seeking work orders, compensation and exemplary damages relating to the swimming pool and HRV system, and refund of payments made for water.
- The tenancy was for a fixed term from 27 April 2025 to 27 April 2026 at a weekly rent of $1,000.00. The tenancy is continuing although the landlord says he intends to sell the property.
- The residential tenancy agreement was between Realzea Property Management as landlord and the tenant. Although not stated in the tenancy agreement, the “landlord” was acting as agent for the owner, as the property manager.
- Notwithstanding the contractual position, I am satisfied that the property manager did not assume responsibility for the owner’s obligations as landlord, and that it would not be appropriate to make findings of liability in respect of the property manager. This finding is reinforced by the tenant’s indication, at the second hearing, that his claim was solely directed at the owner.
- In this decision, the owner is referred to as “the landlord” and the agent as “the property manager”. Relevant Law
- Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair and to comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.
- A landlord is not in breach of their maintenance obligation if they do not remedy a latent or hidden defect (Barfoot & Thompson v Casey (District Court Auckland, CIV 2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007)). This means that a landlord’s maintenance obligation is limited to observable or notified defects, and a tenant has an independent obligation to notify the landlord of damage or the need for repairs.
- Landlords must investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention in a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Limited (District Court Wellington, CIV 2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010)). HRV System
- The tenant says the HRV system was an important consideration when agreeing to rent the premises, for health reasons. The tenant states in the application form that the HRV system was not working for 10 months.
- The owner acknowledges that there were issues at the property, but he took steps to investigate and remedy concerns when they were raised. The owner noted that there was no mention of the HRV system in the tenancy agreement.
- There is an email from the tenant on 13 August 2025, informing the landlord of various problems at the premises, including the HRV system, which the tenant said was not functioning and had not been since they moved in. There is an email from the property manager on 22 December 2025, explaining that “the HRV contact” would attend: “...as soon as his wife returns to Auckland to drive him.”
- The email concluded: The owner also noted that HRV systems are part of HHA [Healthy Homes Assessment] and suggested that you either continue to liaise with [The tenant/s] HRV contact person] and remain patient, or he will have the system removed entirely.
- The tenancy agreement, as provided, is only a few pages long and appears not to include required information, for example about compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards. Therefore, it is not surprising that there is no reference to the HRV system. The system was included in the tenancy.
- At the hearing, the tenant said it took 7 months for the HRV system to be fixed. It seems to have been non-operational from August 2025 (when the landlord was notified) to December 2025, at least, a period of about 4 months. The invoice for repairs is dated 27 January 2026.
- In my view, the landlord failed to provide a working HRV system or to maintain the HRV system in a reasonable state of repair. I would have anticipated that the system could have been repaired within 4-6 weeks of the landlord being notified of a problem, i.e. by 24 September 2025. I award compensation of $100.00 per week for 15 weeks to 7 December 2025, an award of $1,500.00.
- I have considered the landlord’s submission that an HRV system is not mandatory under the Healthy Homes Standards and was an “optional enhancement”. In my view, this misunderstands the landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises, including facilities, throughout the tenancy. The premises having been provided with an HRV system the landlord was required to keep the system in reasonable repair.
- I have considered the landlord’s reliance on a written statement from an HRV technician as evidence that the tenant delayed the repairs. The tenant denied this and disputed the authenticity of the statement. I note that the technician was said to have attended at the property on 24 January 2026, just a few days before the HRV was, to my understanding, repaired. I find that the tenant did not cause any material delay to the repair of the HRV system.
- The tenant claimed exemplary damages on the basis that the landlord delayed repairs to the HRV system to avoid paying a higher price in quotations obtained by the property manager and ultimately installed a cheaper and inferior system. The tenant also notes the landlord’s threat to remove the system. I consider that the landlord could have repaired the HRV system earlier, and did not fully understand his obligations, but I am not satisfied that the breach was intentional. I decline to award exemplary damages. Swimming Pool
- The tenant said that the pool heating and filtration system failed in July/August 2025. The tenant says that the heating remains unrepaired, depriving the tenant and his family of the amenity that they had contracted for. The tenant said he rejected an offer of $500.00 in compensation from the landlord as it did not reflect the loss of amenity.
- The landlord said the filters were replaced prior to the tenancy. During the tenancy, Pool Guru advised that the media (part of the filter system) needed cleaning. They then raised an issue with the heating system.
- Pool Guru sent an invoice to the tenant for $884.36 on 22 December 2025 for cleaning the pool. The tenant advised the landlord that the filter system had stopped working and was asked to obtain a quote.
- On 13 January 2026, Pool Guru quoted $1,081.00 to replace the filters. On 15 January 2026, the property manager stated that, having discussed the quote with a colleague: ...we have decided not to proceed with this quote. As previously noted, while Prince [one of the property managers] has contributed to the pool cleaning, ongoing maintenance remains the responsibility of the tenant.
- On 9 April 2026 the Pool Guru provided a quote for $1,207.50 to change the pool media. The quote also commented on the heating: The pool heater is not showing any power the fuses are okay this needs to be looked at as it could be the control panel I have not included this into the quote but [The tenant/s]] call out fee for first hour is $180+GST with any parts needed not included.
- Pool Guru invoiced $1,322.50 on 5 May 2026 for changing the media.
- It seems there was some delay in maintaining the pool media, because it was believed that maintenance of the pool was the tenant’s responsibility. The tenancy agreement does state that the tenant is to “maintain the lawn and pool”. However, in my view, this could extend no further than routine cleaning and care of the pool to maintain its condition, and not to the maintenance of components such as filters necessary for the pool to be kept clean.
- I find that the landlord was responsible for maintaining the filters. The landlord breached this obligation, and the pool could not be used. I award compensation for the period from mid-January to mid-April 2026 for the failure to replace the filters at $100.00 per week for 12 weeks, an award of $1,200.00.
- The failure to maintain the heating system appears to be ongoing. In my view, this is not just a luxury item (as suggested by the landlord) but part of the facilities and amenities which the tenant has been paying rent for. The heating appears to have become an issue more recently and it is difficult to assess whether this has resulted in any significant loss of amenity. I award compensation for the period from May to the date of the first hearing in June at $50.00 per week for 5 weeks, an award of $250.00.
- I have considered the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages. There is an email from the property manager on 22 December 2025, noting the landlord’s view that “...some of the issues are not considered urgent or life-threatening” and explaining that “financial constraint” was delaying the maintenance process. I also again note the terms of the tenancy agreement imposing obligations on the tenant in respect of the swimming pool.
- I find that the landlord did not intentionally fail to comply with his obligations in respect of the pool and it would not be just to award exemplary damages. Electricity Payments
- The premises, being the main dwelling, is on the same section of land as a cottage and a shed. There is a power meter in the shed which serves the main house and the cottage. There is a separate meter in the shed for power to the nearby water bore and pump.
- The landlord said he had not known that power supplied to the cottage was shared with the main house. When he became aware of the issue, he stopped seeking any contribution to power from the cottage, which has been occupied by the tenant’s mother since October 2025. The landlord arranged for a check meter to be installed and began the process of obtaining a separate power connection through Counties Energy (the landlord provided correspondence supporting this). I acknowledge that the landlord has proposed solutions for calculating the cottage’s share of the electricity use.
- The Tribunal must do its best to estimate the tenant’s use of power because, although a strict interpretation of section 39 of the Act might mean that the tenant does not have to pay anything for power when use cannot be accurately measured, the reality is that the tenant would have been using some power. Awarding full reimbursement would likely be a windfall to the tenant (see Geraghty v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813).
- It follows that the tenant’s request for full reimbursement of power costs totalling $6,120.00 would not be appropriate. The question for the Tribunal is what proportion of the power charges are for the tenant to pay after considering the substantial merits and justice of the case (sections 39 and 85 of the Act).
- The main house had more occupants than the cottage, at least since the tenant’s mother started living there. Prior to this the cottage was occupied by a couple. The main house has the additional power cost of the HRV system and the swimming pool, although as discussed, these have not been functional all the time. For medical reasons, the tenant’s mother also needs to use extra power. I understood this adds significantly to the cost of power in summer to maintain a comfortable temperature.
- In the end, I consider the maxim “Equality is equity” to be applicable. I declare that the tenant is liable for 50% of the power costs from the start of the tenancy until a check meter is (or has been) installed and is to be reimbursed accordingly.
- The parties must work out together what this means in terms of the amount which the tenant is to be reimbursed. If they cannot agree, they will need to return for a further hearing, and the Tribunal will adjudicate the matter.
- I understood from the parties that there is a separate dispute relating to the cottage. This decision determines liability for power between the tenant and the landlord in respect of the main house. It has no implications for the separate dispute.
- I decline to award exemplary damages as requested by the tenant, on the basis that the landlord knew about the shared meter much earlier. There is no jurisdiction to award exemplary damages for a failure to comply with section 39 of the Act. Quiet Enjoyment
- The tenant and the landlord were in conflict about access to the property in April and May 2026. The background is summarised from the tenant’s perspective in his email of 14 May 2026 to the property manager.
- The tenant complained that the landlord refused to allow any plumbing work to proceed unless he could oversee it, turned up unannounced on 26 April 2026 at 11am instead of 1pm, and failed to arrive on 10 May 2026. Then on 14 May 2026 the landlord’s brother attended unannounced with a plumber.
- The tenant said the landlord’s presence meant that the full scope of work necessary to resolve issues would not be authorised. The tenant noted that, while plumbers sent by the property manager had advised that significant work needed to be done to the water system, the landlord’s plumbers advised that only the filter needed changing. It is evident that the tenant sees the landlord as an obstacle to satisfactory repairs.
- The landlord explained in an email that he went to the property on 23 May 2026. The tenant came out and started shouting and saying the landlord was not supposed to be there, and he was going to call the Police. The landlord said he found this shaming.
- The landlord played a recording of part of the argument at the hearing. Although the exchange was tense and the landlord was offended, the tenant was not shouting as was suggested.
- The parties have rights and obligations under the Act. The landlord is entitled to access the premises to perform necessary repairs after giving the required notice under section 48. The landlord should ensure they arrive at the notified time (although stating a precise time in the notice is not mandatory, it is no doubt good practice).
- In my view, the tenant cannot object to the landlord attending with a tradesperson to supervise repairs or other work, even if the tenant suspects the landlord will interfere with what is done. That is not to say the landlord can then behave however he or she wishes, and a landlord who is otherwise entitled to perform repairs may still breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment, if the way in which the right is exercised interferes with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy.
- The Act does not provide a prescriptive answer to every dispute between landlords and tenants. It implicitly and necessarily presumes that both parties will behave with a measure of mutual civility and tolerance. I consider that both parties contributed to the situation which came to a head on 23 May 2026. I decline to find that there was a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. Sceptic Tank
- On 5 January 2026 the Auckland Council wrote to the landlord requesting a copy of the maintenance record for the wastewater system. The system was inspected by a drainage company on 30 January 2026. The treatment tank was said to be functioning well and there was no noticeable sewage odour.
- On 10 March 2026 the tenant emailed the property manager about cleaning the sceptic tank. The tenant said there was “a big hole right next to the pool” which was a hazard. The drainage report, I note, does show a square hole in the ground close to a fence.
- The tenant acknowledges that no issues were identified with the sceptic tank but says the hole constitutes a trip hazard and there are no mushroom caps on the pipes. The tenant says the drainage inspector told him that mushroom caps were required. At the second hearing, the tenant advised that he had filled in the holes.
- The only expert evidence, from the drainage company, does not reveal any issues with the sceptic tank. It is unclear whether any alterations are required. I find the landlord has not breached his maintenance obligation.
- The tenant also raised an issue about the landlord’s failure to have the sceptic tank cleaned out. There are messages from the landlord in late January 2026 providing the details of a drainage company for the tenant to call and arrange to clean the tank. It is unclear on the evidence whether the tenant contacted the company to arrange the work. The Tribunal directs the landlord to clean out the sceptic tank if this is still required. Filing Fee
- The tenant has had some success. I award the filing fee.