What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5491845 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] must pay Astro Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5491845?

Costs (70: $4,025.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5491845?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5491845?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13851549-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5491845 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] must pay Astro Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5491845?

Costs (70: $4,025.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5491845?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5491845?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13851549-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 3, 23 Marine Parade, Herne Bay, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5491845 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5491845 — net $4,053.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Costs (70	$4,025.00	Costs (70
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,053.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,053.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5491845 — net $4,053.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Costs (70	$4,025.00	Costs (70
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,053.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,053.00

Order

[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] must pay Astro Property Management Limited As Agents For Mp23 Limited $4,053.00, being a 70% contribution towards legal costs, immediately, as recorded in the following table:
The tenants’ application is allowed but only to the extent the Tribunal confirming that their tenancy and rent obligation continues to and ends on 23 June 2026 pursuant to the Variation of Residential Tenancy Agreement executed on 1 December 2025.
All remaining claims by the tenants are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by counsel.
The tenants filed an application on 20 April 2026 seeking compensation and exemplary damages. They also seek a reduction of the fixed term along with a rent abatement.
The landlord cross applied on 28 May 2026 seeking a return of rent lost as a result of alleged misrepresentation by the tenants.
They also seek reimbursement of professional legal costs associated with these proceedings.
Both applications were convened together as they concern the same tenancy.
The tenants appeared and gave evidence on their own behalf. Counsel for the landlord appeared and provided viva voce evidence on behalf of the landlord. Reference is made in this decision to a hearing bundle produced by the tenants, and to documents, photographs and video evidence.
Counsel for the landlord provided the Tribunal with written submissions at the start of the hearing on 5 June 2026. Background
The tenancy started on 1 May 2025. The tenants have now vacated the property as of 23 June 2026.
The premises consist of a 2-level stand-alone house with 3 bedrooms and 3.5 bathrooms. The tenants resided there with their young child. The house was built in or around 1990.
The tenants originate from the United States and agreed to rent the property prior to their arrival in New Zealand.
The Tenancy Agreement was executed by the tenants on 28 March 2025. The landlord counter signed on 31 March 2025. The tenancy was for a fixed term beginning on 1 May 2025 and ending on 1 May 2027.
The agreed rent was $4,750.00 per week. A bond of $19,000 was lodged with the bond centre.
During the fixed term the tenants indicated to the landlord that they wished to relocate for reasons concerning schooling of their child.
The tenants later requested a reduction in rent based on what they say was financial hardship. The landlord agreed to reduce to the rent payable to $3,500.00 per week in response to this request as a matter of goodwill until a replacement tenant was found.
This was formalised by way of Variation of Residential Agreement executed by the parties on 1 December 2025.
In early March 2026 the tenants sought a further reduction of rent to $2,000 per week, which the landlord declined.
For a tenancy of such short duration the tenants raise a staggering number of issues in respect of this property. They also provided significant documentation with their application which involved considerable Tribunal time to consider.
Both parties provided documentary evidence in support of their claims. I also heard oral evidence from the parties during the hearing. The parties should know that all evidence has been carefully considered, even though I do not refer to all of it in my decision. It will also be near impossible to refer to each and every point made by the tenants in their written material.
At the outset I wish to acknowledge the time and effort the parties have invested into providing helpful written material for the Tribunal in support of their applications. Issues
For the tenant’s application the issues the Tribunal must decide are these: a. Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? b. Did the landlord commit any unlawful acts? If so, Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages? c. Did the landlord fail to ensure that the premises were compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)? d. Whether the tenants have a valid claim under the provisions of retaliatory notice? e. Whether the landlords breached their obligations to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, including in respect of the absence of a water isolation valve, flickering lights, the stairs, and general items of disrepair (ants, shed door, boat ramp, microwave and garage door). f. Whether the tenant’s stairway falls and associated medical/physiotherapy expenses are attributable to any breach by the landlord. g. Did the landlord breach the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment of the premises? h. Should the rent abate? i. Should the tenancy and all rent obligations end on 23 June 2026? j. Whether the tenants should be granted name suppression.
For the landlord’s application the issues to decide are these a. Whether the landlords are entitled to reimbursement of rental loss said to arise from alleged misrepresentation? b. Whether the landlords are entitled to reimbursement of legal costs? Relevant law
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them is the requirement that a landlord maintains the premises in a reasonable state of repair and complies with the HHS.
A failure by a landlord to comply with these requirements is an unlawful act in each case – section 13A(1F) RTA and section 45(1A) RTA.
Section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord and 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.
Section 54 RTA sets out the grounds in respect of retaliatory notices.
Section 85 RTA provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
Section 95A RTA sets out the grounds for suppression orders.
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”.
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. Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: a. The nature of the breach; b. The duration of the breach; and c. The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: a. The intention of the person; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest. Discussion Tenant application
I summarise the issues raised by the tenants pursuant to their written summary of submissions provided in support of their application. a. Inducement misrepresentation b. Misleading Healthy Homes Statement c. Breach of section 45 RTA d. Obstruction of mitigation in respect of re-advertisement of the property e. Misrepresentation at inducement f. Healthy Homes Statement – written attestation of compliance contrary to fact g. Independent defect in the Statement’s prescribed form h. Significance for quantum and credibility i. Incomplete inspection record j. Structural non-compliance – water isolation k. Health, safety and fire hazards l. Unreasonable restriction on assignment – section 44A RTA m. Market evidence going to misrepresentation and abatement quantum n. Abatement
The tenants provided a detailed schedule of alleged unlawful acts, including reference to their statutory basis and the evidence filed in support as follows: 1Misleading representations at inducement (27/03/2025 phone RTA unlawful-act regime; Sch 1A Bundle Witness Statement; Exhibit C-1 2Misleading Healthy Homes Statement of Intent RTA unlawful-act regime; Sch 1A Document 1; Section IV 3Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards (Ventilation) RT(HHS) Regs 2019, Reg 14; Sch 1A Exhibit B-4; Document 1 4 Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards (Ventilation) — persistent sewage-like odour RT(HHS) Regs 2019, Reg 14; Sch 1A Exhibit B-2 (s 47 Notice citing s 45(1)(ca)) 5Misleading Entry Inspection ReportRTA unlawful-act regime; s 45(1A) Document 2; Section V 6Failure to maintain — electrical (10 months) s 45(1)(b), (c)Document 4; Section VII(a) 7Failure to maintain — non- compliant stairs causing injury s 45(1)(b), (c)Exhibits A-3, A-4; Section VII(b) 8Failure to maintain — sewage odour (post s 47 Notice) s 45(1)(b), (c), (ca)Exhibit B-2 9Failure to comply with Building Code G12/AS1 (water isolation) s 45(1)(c)Document 3; Section VI 10Unreasonable withholding of consent to assignment s 44ABundle Correspondence Index 04/08/2025; Exhibit C-2 11False denial that tenants disclosed mould (post-filing) RTA unlawful-act regime; Sch 1A Bundle Exhibits B-10, B-12, B-13; Section V(d); Document 11 12 Failure to provide prescribed Healthy Homes information (incomplete insulation disclosure: ceiling R-value not known; ceiling and underfloor install and last- inspection dates blank; prescribed confirmation that insulation is in reasonable condition without mould, dampness, damage or gaps — not given for either ceiling or underfloor s 13A; regs under s 138B(5); Sch 1A Document 1; Bundle Exhibit B-4; Section IV.D 13 Agent’s contemporaneous admissions to contractors of foreseeable mould condition, contradicting Healthy Homes Statement False representation of diligence (post filing) – the agent’s written representation of 29 April 2026 that the respondents “have always acted quickly with any maintenance issues”, contradicted by the documented record including a maintenance request acknowledged in writing with a written seven-day commitment to remedy (shed door, 3 April 2026, unactioned for over six weeks notwithstanding the post-filing remediation of other items RTA unlawful-act regime; Sch 1A Witness statement; Section IV.B(i)
The tenants also provided the following schedule in respect of rent paid 1 May 2025 – 3 December 2025 31$4,750$147,250 4 December 2025 – 5 June 2026~26.14 (183 days) $3,500~$91,500 Less: rent credit allowed by Respondents (flooding non-usage) −$3,900 Total rent paid through 5 June 2026 ~$234,850
The tenants provided the following heads of claim Rent abatement (50% of rent paid) s 78; ss 38, 4550% × ~$234,850~$117,425 Rent-free period (5 June 2026 to termination on 3 July 2026; 28 days / exactly 4 weeks) s 78 $3,500/wk × 4 weeks (28 days) $14,000 forgone Special damages — physiotherapys 78Bundle Exhibit A-4 invoices $665 Special damages — PPE, pest treatment, ancillary s 78Receipts (filed)TBD Exemplary damages — 14 unlawful acts (Schedule 1A) s 109; Sch 1A~$5,000 average per act × 14 acts (within Schedule 1A range; headroom for the most serious acts to attract more) ~$70,000 Subtotal (excluding bond) ~$202,000+ (PPE/pest treatment receipts TBD) Bond releases 22B$19,000
The tenants seek the following under section 78 RTA a. Termination with effect on 23 June 2026. b. Monetary order in the sum of $100,000.00 comprising rent abatement, exemplary damages and special damages c. Bond release d. Name suppression e. Alternative remedy. In the alternative, if the Tribunal declines to make the termination order sought the tenants seek an order under section 78 RTA reducing the rent payable under the tenancy agreement to $1,750.00 per week, effective from the date of hearing and continuing through the remainder of the fixed term. The tenants says that the amount of $1,750.00 reflects a 50% reduction on the current contract rent of $3,500.00 per week.
The tenants provided an index of documents filed in support of their claims as follows: •Document 1: Healthy Homes Statement of Intent dated 27 March 2025 • Document 2: Entry Inspection Report dated 22 May 2025 (Family Room, Bedroom 2, and Ensuite sub-references) •Document 3: Plumber video and transcript (live-cut admission re: absent water isolation) •Document 4: SMS records — electrical hazard notifications and Agent admissions •Document 5: Tenancy Services upper-quartile rent data, Herne Bay, May 2026 •Document 6: Comparator market listing, 2 May 2026 •Document 7: SMS from R. King (Astro Property Management Ltd) to the Applicants, dated 7 May 2026 — written admission that, on the assessment of the Respondents’ contracted blinds-cleaning company, the four downstairs blinds were not capable of being cleaned and required replacement, and that the Respondents had given the “go ahead” for those four replacement blinds. • Document 8: SMS exchange between the Applicants and R. King (Astro Property Management Ltd), late April / early May 2026 — the Applicants’ contemporaneous statement that the microwave “has not worked properly for most of the time we’ve lived here”, and the Agent’s same-day reply approving full replacement of the unit. •Document 9: SMS from R. King (Astro Property Management Ltd) to the Applicants, dated 30 April 2026 — confirming acceptance of the contractor’s estimate for the garage door repairs, post-filing. Document 10: SMS from R. King (Astro Property Management Ltd) to the Applicants — confirming the booking of a third ant treatment by Pest X (the same contractor whose original recommendation for ongoing professional preventive management the Respondents had previously declined to authorise) — together with photographic evidence of physical ant bites suffered by the Applicant [The tenant/s] during the third infestation. • Document 11: SMS exchange between the Applicants and R. King (Astro Property Management Ltd) dated 29 April 2026 — the Applicants' preserving notice regarding the 11- month delay in remedying the mould-affected blinds, and the Agent's contemporaneous reply containing (i) a written denial of awareness of the mould-affected blinds ("I don't remember seeing anything about these blinds") and (ii) a written representation that the Respondents have "always acted quickly with any maintenance issues.” • Document 12: SMS exchange between the Applicants and R. King (Astro Property Management Ltd) dated 3 April 2026 — the Applicant [The tenant/s]’s notification to the Agent, with photographs, that the shed door had detached from its hinges, and the Agent’s same-day written acknowledgement and commitment to remedy within seven days: “Thanks. I’ll swing past next week and re attach it.” The repair has not been undertaken; the condition remains unaddressed as at the date of this Memorandum. • Document 13: Additional physiotherapy receipts (two further invoices) supplementing the physiotherapy expenses already documented at Bundle Exhibit A-4, in respect of injuries sustained on 8 August 2025 (ACC Claim KG85253; Section VII(b)). The further receipts are reflected in the special-damages calculation at Section XII. • Document 14: SMS thread between the Applicants and R. King (Astro Property Management Ltd) dated 6 May 2026 to 18 May 2026 — comprising (i) the Applicants' establishment of two dedicated weekly viewing windows for the pre-hearing period (Sundays 12:00–14:00; Thursdays 10:45–12:45); (ii) the Applicants' grant of written consent for the Agent to show the property during the five-day period 13 May 2026 to 17 May 2026 while the Applicants were absent from the premises, on three stated conditions (no shoes worn inside; the property fully secured upon exit; advance notification of any scheduled viewing); (iii) the Agent's SMS of 18 May 2026 reporting that a prospective viewer who had enquired on 5 May 2026 had, by 13 May 2026, ceased to be interested in viewing the property without advising a reason; and (iv) the Applicants' contemporaneous written response of 18 May 2026 preserving on the record that the failure of the viewing is not attributable to the Applicants.
The tenants submit that their substantiated quantum exceeds the Tribunal jurisdiction of $100,000.00. The tenants seek the maximum award available, full release of the bond, termination of the tenancy on a certain date, a rent-free period to termination, and name suppression.
The tenants further submit that in the alternative, if termination is declined, they seek an order under section 78 RTA reducing the rent prospectively to $1,750.00 per week from the date of hearing and continuing through the remainder of the fixed term – being a 50% reduction on the current rent of $3,500.00, applying the same valuation of the dwelling in its actual condition reflected in the historical period abatement, on the grounds advanced by the tenants, including that the structural water mains isolation defect cannot be remedied without invasive works to which the tenants do not consent to during their occupancy on quiet enjoyment grounds under section 38 RTA. Structural non-compliance – breach of the building code.
The tenants refer to an unconsented video recording of a plumber where the plumber states that there is no way to turn the water off in the event of a leak. The tenant says that there was a previous leak to which the plumber had responded to 13 February 2026. This resulted in the need for a live cut of the water pipe. They say there is no shut off water valve. They say should there be a leak there is no way to shut off the water which would result in flooding of the premises.
The tenants say the absent valve was not something they could have reminded themselves of that if the pipe burst within the dwelling then there is no way to shut it off.
The tenants say that there was a leak from the pipe on 13 February 2026 which resulted in a leak in a storage room off the laundry.
The tenants also say that the storage room holds the electronics for the entire house.
Counsel for the landlord says that the landlords have always acted promptly and properly in respect of maintenance issues. They have engaged qualified trades people and have been prepared to incur substantial costs in doing so.
The landlord says that in respect of the minor leak under the house the leak was reported at approximately 5 pm and attended to within 45 mins and repaired.
Counsel says that the property manager Mr King has provided photos in support of what counsel has submitted.
The landlord referred the Tribunal to an email from the plumbing manager, confirming the action they undertook on 13 February 2026. They were able to repair the leak but were not able to shut the water off.
The plumber had to undertake a live cut of the pipe to repair the pipe. On 8 April the plumber returned in response to a complaint from the tenants that they could smell something. This turned out to be an issue with the gully trap which was repaired by the plumbers on 24 April.
The tenant says that the issue with the gully trap was only repaired after the tenant served a 14-day notice on the landlord. The tenant says that this is further evidence that things were not remedied in a timely manner like the landlords were saying.
The landlords says that the tenants had raised the issue of a smell. The landlord attended to inspect. The tenant insisted that a contractor look at the issue. The landlord attended and had a discussion with the tenant. The landlord could not see anything. The landlord, after receiving a breach notice from the tenant arranged for a plumber to attend straight away. The plumber could not at first identify any issue. It was not until the plumber went upstairs at which point he could smell something. The plumber then arranged for parts and returned to repair.
The tenants say that there was a pipe in the house which could not be shut off and suggest that if it burst it would flood the entire house and all their items.
The tenants accepted that there has been no flood. Analysis
I accept the evidence that there was no isolation valve within the dwelling. However, the absence of such a valve, without more, does not establish non- compliance with the building code or a breach of section 45 RTA.
No builder’s surveyor’s report, code compliance assessment, or other expert evidence was produced to establish that a valve of this kind was required by the building code applicable to a dwelling of this age, or that its absence rendered the premises unsafe or not in a reasonable state of repair.
The uncontested evidence is that when leaks did occur, the landlord responded within a short timeframe and ultimately resolved both the pipe leak and gully trap issue.
The tenants accept that no flooding in fact occurred.
On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied the landlords failed to maintain the premises in respect of these matters. I also place limited weight on the unconsented video recording of the plumber.
Accordingly, the claim has not been established. Maintenance issues in respect of flickering lights in the upstairs bedroom, downstairs master and downstairs living area
The tenant says that on 23 October 2025 there was a flickering light in the downstairs bedroom which was the room used by their son.
The tenant produced a video of the flickering light which I sighted during the hearing. There was no visible smoke coming from the light. They brought this to the attention of the landlords several times. The tenant says that this had been flickering since they moved in. The tenants say they first brought this to the attention of the landlord on 1 May, the day they moved in.
The landlords say that the tenant claiming that this is a ‘life safety issue event’ is overstating the issue.
The landlord refers to their previous statement that they have acted promptly on all maintenance issues and in respect of electrical issues the landlord had an electrician attend on multiple occasions. The landlord referred the Tribunal to their bundle with an email from Bolton Electrical dated 8 May 2026. The landlord further stated that this was a large house with numerous LED lights.
The tenants responded by referring to the electrician’s letter where it states that he has not carried out a full periodic inspection or an electrical condition report.
The tenants say they did not move out as they were locked in a fixed term lease.
The landlord says that the tenants still have remedies if the issues are life threatening. The landlord says that they could have come to the Tribunal if there were life threatening issues. The landlord also says it is for the tenant to prove their claims. Analysis
The video evidence does not establish a fire or ‘life safety’ hazard, and there is no expert electrical report to the contrary.
The landlord’s evidence of repeated electrician attendances is unchallenged.
I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to maintain the property in this respect.
The claim has not been established. Stairs
The tenants claim that the stairs are not safe and that evidence of this is the ‘slippery stairs’ sign which was placed by the landlord when they moved in.
The tenant allege that they have all fallen down the stairs. The female tenant says that she has fallen down multiple times (August and November 2025) and filed an ACC claim in respect of this. She says she was injured.
The invoices relating to this injury were provided to the Tribunal in support by the tenant. She also says that the previous tenant had fallen down the stairs.
The landlords respond by saying that they are unsure of what compliance issue the tenants are referring to. The landlord says that they merely brought the slippery stairs to the attention of the tenants when they moved in.
The landlord says that there is no issue or evidence of established defect with the stairs proving the fall. They say they stairs are not inherently dangerous and that there is also a handrail. They also say that the tenants falling in August and November were never raised earlier with them.
The tenants say that they did a ‘sight unseen’ from California and could not have known at the time that the stairs were slippery. Analysis
A cautionary sign placed for the benefit of incoming tenants is not, of itself, an admission of an unsafe structure, and no building or engineering report was produced to establish a defect in the stairs.
The falls were not reported to the landlords at the time they are said to have occurred. This deprived the landlords of any opportunity to investigate or remedy a potential hazard. I find that this undermines the tenants’ ability to establish that any fall was caused by a defect for which the landlords were responsible for, as opposed to some other cause.
While the tenant says that she sustained an injury and incurred medical costs associated with this, the medical evidence only establishes that medical treatment was received. It does not establish that the fall was caused by any defect in the stairs attributable to a breach by the landlords.
The necessary link between the alleged breach and the loss claimed has not been established. Healthy Homes Standards – Mould on blinds
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard also requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenants say that the issue of mould was not remedied prior to the application. They say that the blinds in all the bedrooms had mould. They discovered this mould within weeks of moving in. They say that they discovered it right away and recorded it on the entry condition report. They also took photographs which were provided in support.
The tenant referred the Tribunal to the entry condition report prepared by the landlord on 30 April 2025.
The tenants repeatedly asked for the blinds to be replaced as a result of being dirty and mildewed.
The tenants say that after they lodged their application the landlords instructed a blind cleaning company who attended on 7 May 2026 and stated that the downstairs blinds were not able to be cleaned and would need to be replaced.
The blind cleaner stated to the tenant that the mould had been there for some time. The tenants say they were paying significant money to rent a place with mouldy blinds.
The landlord says that the entry condition report was sent to the tenants just prior to them moving in. The tenant sent through comments on 23 May in respect of the mould on the blinds.
The landlord says that the tenants did not specifically ask that they come and attend to the mould on the blinds.
The landlords say that if the tenants had text or phoned them for maintenance on the blinds they would have attended to this straight away.
The landlord says that the blinds were not unsalvageable.
The tenant referred the Tribunal to a text message to the landlord dated 26 June 2025 which she says explains her frustration with maintenance issues in the house.
The tenant also referred to a photograph taken on 23 May 2025 of the master bedroom blinds showing mould present. The tenant says that they had an oral conversation in August 2025 in respect of the blinds, asking for them to be cleaned. Analysis
The Healthy Homes Standards address matters such as ventilation, drainage and moisture ingress.
That there might be mould present does not of itself establish a breach of the HHS.
It is not disputed that mould is caused by moisture. But the HHS are specific standards that address heating, ventilation, draught, and the proper removal of water from downpipes. The moisture that results in mould is not always due to any problem with the premises but can be caused by the way the premises are used.
No moisture readings, ventilation assessment, drainage inspection or other technical evidence was produced to establish that the dwelling’s systems failed to meet the prescribed standards.
The presence of mould on blinds is regrettable and the landlords, once a contractor attended and confirmed replacement was required, acted on it.
The tenant has not produced any independent evidence, assessment report, or other reliable evidence establishing that the premises were not compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards.
On the evidence produced I am not satisfied that a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards has been established. General maintenance
[The tenant/s] and [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 • 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 tenants say that there was a general failure by the landlord to maintain the property. There was an issue with ants, broken shed door, boat ramp, microwave was not working properly and the garage door not opening.
The tenants say that they sent a text message to the landlord about the garage door. The tenants say that this goes to the general disrepair of the house.
The landlord responded by stating that the motivation for this was the severe hardship raised by the tenants in December 2025.
The landlord says that a number of remedial maintenance issues have been raised in the tenant’s tribunal application which were not brought to the attention of the landlord.
The landlord says that they were not aware of some of the issues until the Tribunal application was lodged. As soon as these issues were brought to the attention of the landlord via the Tribunal application they got on straight away and remedied.
The landlord says that the ant infestation was always outside the property. On each occasion the landlord sent a pest controller to address the issue.
The landlord says that they knew nothing about the issue with the boat ramp.
The landlord says that they were unaware of the issue until the tenants text them on 28 April 2026. The landlord contacted the garage door repair company on 28 April 2026 and the garage door repaired on 1 May 2026. The landlord says that tenant mentioned to them about the microwave.
The landlord says that he advised the tenants he would attend but was told not to worry about it as the microwave was not playing up. The landlord says that the microwave issue was raised again on 13 April 2026 at the same time that the tenant’s made a complaint about the fridge.
The tenant says that many of these issues were raised during the routine inspections. The tenant also referred the Tribunal to an ant problem, claiming that their son was bitten by ants.
They say the son is allergic to ants. The ants were on the son’s bathroom floor and the vanity. The tenant says that the landlord suggested that previous tenants did not have an issue with ants.
The landlord says that often ants are attracted to a place because of human behaviour. Analysis
The evidence clearly establishes that as soon as each of these matters was brought to the landlord’s attention, they were addressed within a reasonable timeframe. In some cases, this was the same day or shortly thereafter.
Where a tenant declines an offer to attend to repair, as occurred with the microwave, a landlord cannot fairly be said to be in breach for not having remedied it. A landlord also cannot be expected to remedy maintenance issues that are not brought to their attention at the time the issues arise.
I am not satisfied a failure to maintain has been established in respect of these items. It is also fair to note that there would not be many dwellings in Auckland that at some stage do not experience an issue with ants.
The evidence demonstrates a prompt and reasonable response to the reported issue rather than any neglect of the landlord’s maintenance obligations.
While I accept that the tenant experienced inconvenience arising from these issues, the evidence does not establish that the landlord intentionally or unreasonably failed to maintain the premises as required by the RTA.
The claim has not been established.

Should the rent abate, and if so by how much?

When uninhabitability is established, the rent must abate. There is no formula for this. In the Christchurch cases, even when premises were considered totally destroyed and therefore uninhabitable for a period, rent abated by around 50%.
The tenants says that the landlord had set the rent too high which meant it took far too long to find a replacement. The tenants say the rent was not a true market price. The tenant says that she bases this on other similar properties in the area. They say the rent paid was excessive and therefore seeks a 50% rent refund based on the excessive rent paid for the area.
The landlord says that they are not liable for any rent abatement.
The landlord’s view is that the tenant’s view is motivated by their own personal circumstances.
On 4 August 2025 the tenants emailed the landlord stating that they wished to move because of the desire for a different school for their child.
The landlord says that the tenant is an executive worker earning a more than reasonable income and signed a binding agreement. They say that the tenants deciding to change was a breach of the agreement and it is not unreasonable for the landlord to expect the tenants to be bound by the terms of the lease.
In December 2025 the tenants made assertions to the landlord in respect of their financial situation.
The landlord says that as a gesture of good will the landlord agreed to reduce the rent to the amended amount of $3,500.00. The agreement was that the tenants would pay this reduced amount and would remain payable until such time as a new tenant was found.
The landlord says that the various maintenance issues were not raised at the time the variation to the tenancy agreement was signed. Analysis
I find that the tenants freely signed a legally binding agreement at the stated rent, and no reliable valuation or comparable evidence was produced to establish that the agreed rent did not reflect market value at the time it was fixed.
Rent abatement compensates a tenant for a proven diminution on the value attributable to a proven breach by the landlord. It is not a mechanism for the Tribunal to substitute its own view of what a market rent ought to have been.
As I have found no breach by the landlord there is no basis on which to order abatement.
Accordingly, the claim has not been established. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenants claim the landlord has breached their right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.
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.
The tenants claim that they had trades people coming in and out of the house. The tenant says that all things failing inside the house and the constant flow of trades people and the noise from dehumidifiers was disruptive.
The landlord says that there was a flood from the washing machine in June 2025. The landlord agreed to a rent credit of $3901.00 as compensation for the loss of use.
The tenants confirmed during the hearing that they received this amount as a rent credit.
The landlord replied by saying that this is a contradiction in that on one hand the tenants want things repaired but on the other hand they are complaining about the interruptions which follow on from this. Analysis
Compensation has already been agreed and accepted for the incident which gave rise to the disruption relied upon.
The attendance of tradespeople to remedy matters, including matters raised by the tenant themselves, is an ordinary incident and does not necessarily amount to a substantial interference with quiet enjoyment. There is no evidence presented that the attendances were unnecessary or not notified to the tenants.
Accordingly, the claim has not been established. Retaliatory conduct
Section 54 RTA operates only in respect of a notice of termination given by a landlord that is shown to be retaliatory in nature, following a tenant’s exercise of a right under the RTA.
No such termination notice has been given in this tenancy.
The tenant’s claim as advanced, does not fall within the scope of section 54 and therefore cannot succeed.
The claim has not been established.

Should the tenant be awarded exemplary damages?

For the Tribunal to award exemplary damages, the tenant must firstly establish a breach by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities, secondly establish that the breach amounted to a defined unlawful act, and thirdly establish that the landlord acted with intent.
In none of the instances referred to by the tenant would it be just to find that the landlord has breached its statutory responsibilities. And in none of the alleged instances has the tenant proved the necessary element of intent.
Exemplary damages require proof of an unlawful act, and evidence of a degree of intention or reckless disregard shown by the party in breach.
Having found no breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations or of the Healthy Homes Standards established on the evidence provided, there is no unlawful act to which exemplary damages could apply.
The evidence discloses a landlord who engaged tradespeople and responded to reported issues, rather than acting with intention or reckless disregard for the tenants’ rights.
The claim for exemplary damages has not been established. When does the tenants’ rent obligation end?
The tenants say that the Variation of Residential Tenancies Agreement, executed by both parties on 1 December 2025, constitutes a valid and enforceable variation of the fixed term tenancy agreement pursuant to the RTA.
The variation was entered into following the tenants’ request for a reduction in rent due to financial issues, with the landlord agreeing to reduce the weekly rent from $4,750.00 to $3,500.00 in exchange for the terms contained within the variation document.
Central to that agreement is clause 6, which provides that, upon the landlord sourcing a suitable replacement tenant and notifying the tenants in writing, the tenants had 24 hours to elect whether to exercise their option to continue the tenancy.
The agreement expressly defines the “early termination date” as being 28 days after the landlord’s notification by email.
The legal effect of the party’s agreement is clear and, in my view is not open to interpretation.
Once the contractual clause was triggered and the tenants elected not to exercise their option, the tenancy was required to terminate on 23 June 2026 (being 28 days) and the tenants’ obligation to pay rent ceases on that date, and not before.
The landlord has not produced any evidence establishing that the variation agreement is invalid, unenforceable, void or should otherwise be set aside on any statutory or contractual grounds.
In the absence of such evidence, I find that the Tribunal should give effect to the written variation document which the parties agreed to on 1 December 2025.
Accordingly, I confirm that the tenancy terminates, and the tenants’ rent obligation ceases, on 23 June 2026 in accordance with the provisions agreed to in the variation document. Bond
The tenants seek return of their bond money. The amount held by the bond centre is substantial.
It would now appear that there may be a fresh application which has either been lodged or will be lodged in respect of potential vacated compensation by the landlord.
In light of this I make no order releasing the bond.
The bond will remain with the bond centre until such time as the parties agree to its release or by further order of the Tribunal.
A new application for fresh vacated compensation claims can therefore be convened by any adjudicator.
Accordingly, no order for the release of the bond is made.

Should the tenants receive name suppression?

The tenants seek name suppression, relying on the presence of a minor child in the household and alleged prejudice to their professional standing.
The landlord opposes the tenants’ request for name suppression.
Section 95 RTA does not confer an automatic entitlement to suppression for an unsuccessful party. And a party who is unsuccessful in their application is in no different position in this respect than any other unsuccessful party.
Suppression requires proper grounds to be established, in other words that publication would cause a degree of prejudice or hardship beyond what is inherent in being a named party to a tenancy dispute of the kind the Tribunal deals with as a matter of daily course.
No evidence was produced to establish that the child’s circumstances, or the tenants’ professional circumstances take this case outside that ordinary scope.
The tenants sought suppression of their names. However, the tenants were not wholly or substantially successful.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the tenants having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the tenants’ name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the tenant and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the tenants’ name and identifying details. Landlord application Misrepresentation leading to a loss of rent (s77 RTA)
The landlord claims compensation of $89,392.86 based on misrepresentation. The landlord suggests the tenants made a mistake by entering into the lease. The tenants described the decision to rent the property as a ‘splurge’ after signing the contract for the agreed weekly rent amount of $4750.00.
Some 3 months later they contacted the landlord saying that they wanted to get out of the lease stating that they wanted their son to move to a different school. In December 2025 they again contacted the landlord claiming financial hardship which was considered by the landlord in good faith.
The landlord says that they did not ever accept that there was severe hardship. The landlord agreed in good faith to reduce the weekly rent from $4750.00 to $3500.00. At the time there were representations given by the tenants that they had the financial means to meet the reduced rent.
The landlord says there were references to the tenants’ request that they would apply to the Tenancy Tribunal based on severe hardship.
The landlord says that at the time there was no mention by the tenants of any maintenance issues.
In early March 2026 the tenants made a further request to reduce the rent obligation to $2000.00 per week based on further financial hardship and if the landlord did not agree then the tenants would go to the Tenancy Tribunal.
The landlord refused this further request on the basis that they had been more than accommodating to date. The landlord says that if they knew the conduct the tenants displayed then they would not have agreed to the reduction back in December 2025.
The landlord referred to paragraph 12.10 of their written submissions for a breakdown of the rent refund sought as a result of misrepresentation. The landlord maintains that they have acted in good faith in respect of all matters.
The tenants say that there were no misrepresentations in respect of their proceedings.
The tenants maintain that they provided evidence which was signed off by the director of the company which owns the property. The tenant says that there is further evidence of his employer failing to secure funding which lead to a further request for a reduction in rent in March.
The tenants referred the Tribunal to an email dated 5 March 2026 from the CEO of the tenant’s employer stating that they would not make full payroll “for you next Friday”.
The tenant also says that while the landlord was trying to mediate the proceedings they felt threatened with the suggestion that they take the bond and drop everything. The tenant does not accept that she threatened them with Tribunal proceedings.
The landlord referred the Tribunal to an email dated 4 March 2026 from the tenant stating that either a reduction to $2,000 per week, or termination within 4 weeks. or off to the Tribunal. Analysis
A claim of this nature requires evidence that a false representation of fact was made, known by the maker to be false or made recklessly as to its truth, and relied upon to the landlord’s detriment.
The tenants provided documentation in support for their stated position at the time, including confirmation from the tenant’s employer of financial difficulty.
Whilst the basis for hardship is questionable, especially having regard to the income of the tenant, the reality is that the landlord accepted this at the time and upon which they agreed in good faith to reduce the rent.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal establishing that the representations made were false or that the tenant’s subsequent application to this Tribunal, or their earlier request for a further rent reduction was other than an attempt to advance matters they believed themselves entitled to raise.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the tenant’s conduct, including the bringing of their application was dishonest, frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise improperly motivated.
The claim for reimbursement of rental loss has not been established.

Should the landlord be reimbursed for their legal costs under section 102 RTA?

Section 102 RTA empowers the Tribunal to order a party to reimburse another party’s costs where it is satisfied a claim was frivolous, vexatious, or ought not to have been brought (102(2)(a)).
The section also empowers the Tribunal to order costs where a party was represented by counsel (s102(2)(b)).
Costs are not routinely awarded in the Tenancy Tribunal. However, section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows the Tribunal to award costs where it considers that the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious or ought not to have been brought; where any of the parties was represented by counsel; or where the matter in dispute should have been settled at mediation.
Generally, costs are awarded in a range between 40-70% depending on various factors such as the complexity of the case, the actions of the parties, attempts at settlement, and the reasonableness of the claim for costs, objectively viewed.
The landlord claims solicitor costs of $5750.00 including GST, saying the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious or ought not to have been brought.
I do not accept that the tenants’ application, taken as a whole, was frivolous or vexatious, or that it ought not to have been brought.
As set out above, there were genuine matters requiring attention during the tenancy – leaks, an electrical fault, mould on blinds, and some items requiring repair. One of the events lead to compensation in the form of a rent credit.
The tenants were entitled to raise these with the Tribunal for determination, even though I have found the landlords did address them in a reasonably timely manner and that no compensable breach has been established.
That being said, having regard to the significant number of claims advanced by the tenants, the value placed on them, and the standard of the proceedings the landlord was required to meet, I am satisfied that the landlords acted reasonably in their decision to instruct counsel to represent their interests at the hearing.
It was entirely reasonable for the landlord to seek professional legal advice in respect of the these proceedings.
In those circumstances it is appropriate that the landlord recovers a contribution towards their legal costs, though not the full amount claimed.
Accordingly, I award the landlord $4,025.00, being a 70% contribution towards the costs of legal representation. I order this as a standalone debt and not a deduction against the bond.
Because Astro Property Management Limited As Agents For Mp23 Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord does not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5491845 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 23 Marine Parade, Herne Bay, Auckland

Tenancy Tribunal case 5491845 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 23 Marine Parade, Herne Bay, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the rent abate, and if so by how much?

Should the tenant be awarded exemplary damages?

Should the tenants receive name suppression?

Should the landlord be reimbursed for their legal costs under section 102 RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the rent abate, and if so by how much?

Should the tenant be awarded exemplary damages?

Should the tenants receive name suppression?

Should the landlord be reimbursed for their legal costs under section 102 RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions