What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5495690 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] is

How much money was awarded in case 5495690?

Compensation: $950.00 awarded to tenant; Power And Water: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $12,350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5495690?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5495690?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13906791-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5495690 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] is

How much money was awarded in case 5495690?

Compensation: $950.00 awarded to tenant; Power And Water: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $12,350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5495690?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5495690?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13906791-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

152 Weatherly Road, Torbay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5495690 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5495690 — net $11,850.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 22 July 2026	$12,350.00		Rent arrears to 22 July 2026
Power and water	$450.00		Power and water
Compensation		$950.00	Compensation
Total award	$12,800.00	$950.00
Net award	$11,850.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,850.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5495690 — net $11,850.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 22 July 2026	$12,350.00		Rent arrears to 22 July 2026
Power and water	$450.00		Power and water
Compensation		$950.00	Compensation
Total award	$12,800.00	$950.00
Net award	$11,850.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,850.00

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] is terminated and possession granted to Millhouse Trustee Company Limited at 11:59 pm on 22 July 2026.
[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Millhouse Trustee Company Limited $8,050.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 (BN-25114049) to Millhouse Trustee Company Limited immediately.
All other clams are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the tenant and landlord.
Both parties appeared at the hearing in the Northshore District Courthouse today.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 18 February 2026 as a fixed-term tenancy, ending on 18 February 2027.
The landlord is Millhouse Trustee Company Limited, and the three co- tenants are: a. Saraiah Wikitoria Mellor b. Te [The tenant/s]; and c. Riana May Joanna Mellor
The weekly rental is $950.00. A bond of $3,800.00 was paid, and is in the Bond Centre.
The electricity and water for the premises were supplied under one account, to the Tenancy premises and a separate unit on the ground floor level. The landlord states that there was a check meter which confirmed the services supplied to the Tenancy.
Within weeks of the tenancy commencing, the tenants reported water leaks from the ceiling. I will discuss this further below.
The last rent payment made by the tenants was on 15 April 2026. The rent arrears is are now substantial, and will be discussed further below also.
The tenant filed a claim with the Tribunal on 23 April 2026. The landlord’s claim was filed on 14 July 2026.

TENANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the tenants confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Exemplary damages for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards b. Full refund of rent because the house does not meet the Healthy Homes Standards. c. Storage costs. d. Compensation for the roof leak. e. Unlawful entry

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the landlords representative confirmed the landlord’s claims are as follows: a. Rent arrears $12,350. b. Electricity costs $526.91. c. Water rates $405.32. d. Termination of tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Exemplary damages
The Tribunal must consider a claim for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.

ANALYSIS

I will now consider the tenant and landlord claims in turn. Tenant claims
Three of the orders that the tenant seeks relate to water leaks or issues with water pooling on the patio area. There is also a claim regarding maintenance of the electrical system in the house. I will set out what the parties said about these matters together given the overlap, but will consider the claims separately below, as the legal considerations are different for each claim.
The tenant said that within two weeks of moving in, the roof started leaking, and there are now some 10 leaks around the tenancy. After this was raised with the landlord, a handyman went on the roof, and could not fix the leaks. The tenant requested a proper contractor attend, and a roofer did attend but could not repair the roof.
The tenant said that the roofer claimed the roof was not safe, and there were multiple broken tiles. The tenant said that only temporary fixes were made to the roof, and the advice of the roofer was to replace the roof.
I asked the tenant how the leak had affected her. The tenant states that she has health problems which have been made worse because of the roof. The tenant said that she found a cockroach in her medication. The tenant said that her daughter is also sick, and any disruption to her granddaughter’s sleep routine is problematic. The tenant said the floor and mats would become damp.
The landlord states that concerns about a leak were first raised with the landlord in March. A contractor was arranged to come to the premises and attended on 28 March 2026, but was not able to access the roof because they would need to go through a room, but one of the tenant’s family was sleeping in the room where access to the roof needed to occur.
There was then a delay in reattendance due to bad weather.
The landlord states that when she attended, she could see some water marks on the ceiling, but otherwise did not consider the effect of the leak was significant.
The landlord also set out in detail what efforts were made to find a roofing contractor, including detailing the specific roofing contractors contacted, and what their responses were (which were largely that they were not available).
A roofer was arranged to attend on 10 April.
The tenant said that some of the electrical work was undertaken by the handyman, and some of the plugs do not work.
The landlord states that the handyman has not undertaken any work to the electrical system because he is not an electrician. The landlord states that an electrician, ‘Josh’, has been to the premises, and a copy of his registration certificate was provided to the tenant.
The tenant agrees that Josh did contact her, but states he has not gone to the premises. The tenant states that the landlord had wanted the handyman to do the electrical work. Claim 1 – Breach of the Healthy Homes Standards
The tenant claims that the landlord breached its obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the HHS. A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered as set out in Schedule 1A to the RTA.
The only HHS standard that the tenants have raised in this application, relates to the standard around moisture ingress and drainage. The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain stormwater, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains.
It can be accepted that having an effective roof would fall within the moisture ingress and drainage standards, as the roof would be an integral part of the system that drains stormwater. In this case, I accept that the roof was leaking, and to that extent has breached the landlord’s obligations with the HHS from a technical perspective.
The primary remedy available for a breach of the HHS is exemplary damages. I have set out above the criteria that must be considered for exemplary damages claims, and that includes that the landlord’s breach must be intentional. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord has intentionally breached its HHS obligations. There is no evidence the landlord was aware there was a leak in the roof at the start of the tenancy, or that the landlord knew of a leak at all. The landlord’s evidence was that the first they knew of the leak, was when it was raised by the tenant in March. The tenant has not proven otherwise.
But once the leak was raised by the tenant, it is clear to me that the landlord acted efficiently in getting the leak repaired, or at least in getting contractors to the house the house to undertake that work. This is not a case of a landlord doing nothing and allowing the leak to continue. Because I find there is no intentional breach as it relates to the roof leak, this claim must be dismissed.
In relation to the rainwater pooling on the patio, I find that is not a breach of the HHS. The HHS looks to provide a range of obligations around the tenancy building – not the tenancy grounds. The relevant HHS regulation is found at regulation 27(1) which requires that: The tenancy building must have a drainage system that efficiently drains storm water, surface water, and ground water to an appropriate outfall. [Adjudicators emphasis]
The tenant has not established a link to pooling of water on the patio to the ‘tenancy building ’, and to that extent she has not proven a breach as it relates to the water outside the premises.
But if I were wrong in that assessment, the photographs provided by the tenant show only minimal amounts of water on the patio, not at a level I would say there is a clear drainage problem.
The application for orders in relation to a breach of the HHS is therefore dismissed. Claim 2 – Full refund of rent due to breach of HHS.
I am not persuaded that there is any basis to order full refund of the rent to the tenant as claimed. The tenant has claimed compensation which I will discuss below, there is an overlap between this claim and the compensation claim, but I will deal with the compensation claim shortly. Claim 3 – Storage costs
The tenant said that she moved into this tenancy, which is not HHS compliant, and that it was falsely advertised by the landlord, and because it was falsely advertised, she should not have to pay for her storage.
In response, the landlord states that from the beginning of the tenancy the house was not leaking, and she was not aware there were any leaks. Analysis
I cannot see any relationship between the roof leak and the tenant’s storage costs. The tenant confirmed that she moved some of her goods into the house and other goods into storage. That has no relationship to the leaks which developed later.
Otherwise, the tenant has not proven the premises were falsely advertised. There is no evidence that the roof was leaking prior to the tenancy start date, so it could not be said that the landlord has misrepresented the building when it was advertised, as being compliant with the HHS when the landlord knew it was not.
This claim is dismissed. Claim 4 – Compensation for roof leak
As above, it is not disputed that the roof leaked, and as I have found that then breached the HHS.
I accept that the leak has caused an inconvenience for the tenant. As far as compensation is concerned, that could be viewed from various perspectives, including that the tenant was not getting what she was paying rent to receive, that was a property which should have been dry and not leaking.
I consider it would be reasonable for some level of compensation be paid.
The challenge however is working out what a fair level of compensation would be, as in this case there is very limited evidence supporting a loss for the tenant which could be compensated for.
The tenant states that the leaking property has caused health problems for herself and her family. As I noted at the hearing today, I have received no medical evidence supporting that. The tenant said she had underlying health problems and that caused a vulnerability for her. I do not dispute that, but that fact of itself does not prove a link between the leak in the ceiling, and health problems for her.
The tenant noted that she found a cockroach in her medication one day. I accept that, but cockroaches are ubiquitous in New Zealand, they are not found only in premises that leak, again it is difficult to relate that fact to the presence of a cockroach.
I have considered the photographs presented, and they would show indications consistent with some water ingress, but the photographs do not show in my assessment, significant damage to the property.
By their very nature, water leaks can range in impact. There could be a very minor water leak which does not affect the people living in the dwelling at all, or it could be extreme, where the premises are no longer habitable. Beyond the tenants’ oral statements at the hearing, I have not received any objective evidence showing an effect.
I have also taken into consideration that the tenants submission that the landlord has not appointed adequately qualified people to undertake the work. I am not convinced about that. There is no problem with getting a handyman to assessed repair work in the first instance, and if the handyman could fix the leak, that would seem lawful to me, but when that outcome could not be achieved, the landlord has approached multiple roofers, who are experts in fixing roof leaks, and as I have indicated above, this is not a case of a landlord doing nothing, I accept the landlord has been active and trying to get the problems resolved.
In relation to the electrical system, again other than the tenant’s statement the system was worked on by the handyman, there is no evidence of that. The landlord’s evidence is that the handyman did not undertake any work to the electrical system, but that an electrician (Josh) had been appointed for that work, which would seem appropriate. The fact of the electrician contacting the tenant gives weight to the landlords position.
When I take the above into consideration, while I consider that some compensation should be provided in relation to the inconvenience around the water leak, in the absence of the tenant providing evidence showing a more material effect for her, I order that one week’s rent be paid to compensate the tenant for any inconvenience or loss regarding the leak. Claim 5 – Unlawful entry
The tenant said that the landlord entered her shed without consent, and a contractor entered the premises on Good Friday.
The Landlord states that the roofer did not go inside the property until the landlord arrived.
The tenant disputes that this is the case, and states that contractors did come into the house, but she knew they were coming to the premises. The tenant said that she did have notice the landlord was coming, but that the contractors were to go in with the landlord. Analysis
The landlord does not need to obtain consent or give notice to enter the land or facilities (the shed) comprising the tenancy. Section 48 of the RTA relates to the landlord’s right of entry, with subsection one confirming that the landlord “shall not enter the premises” other than that with the consent of the tenant given at the time, or if the Act would otherwise allow it, such as following notice.
If the landlord fails to comply with the entry requirements, then they commit an unlawful act, and therefore exemplary damages could be ordered. But the problem for the tenants, is subsection 7 which holds that “In this section premises does not include land or facilities”. The shed would be ‘facilities’.
The effect of that subsection 7 provision is to exclude any requirement for the landlord to obtain consent, or give notice, to enter land or facilities that otherwise comprise the premises.
In terms of the entry on Good Friday, that related to an attendance for the leak. The evidence is that the landlord had given the tenant notice that they were coming to the property, and so even if the tenant’s version of events was the correct version, the landlord gave notice which would also apply to the landlord’s contractors.
Unlawful entry has not been established, so this claim is dismissed. Landlord claims Claim 1 – Rent arrears
The landlord seeks rent arrears.
The tenant said that she stopped paying rent because of the leak. Analysis
The tenant must pay rent when it falls due. The tenant has not at all disputed that she stopped paying rent as shown in the landlord’s rent ledger. As noted above, the last rental payment was 15 April 2026, the rent arrears now sit at $12,350, which would be rent arrears up until 22 July 2026.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is established, and is ordered in full. Claim 2 – Electricity and water charges
I will deal with the claims for electricity and water charges together. The landlord states that the outstanding power charges are $526.91, and the outstanding water charges are $405.32. The landlord said there were check meters that the calculation for the charges raised to the tenant was based.
The tenant said that no power or water bill has been provided, the landlord does not dispute that.
In response the landlord said that there was a challenging relationship with the tenant, including the tenant saying on 30 April not to send her anything.
The tenant disputes that she told the landlord not to send the bills. Analysis
The RTA requires that tenants be responsible for outgoings that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the Tenancy.
Of itself, having a single meter supplying to dwellings is not unlawful, but the charge raised to the tenant must be based on an accurate and fair proportion of the overall cost. There is also an expectation that if the landlord has elected to hold the account for utilities, and oncharge those to the tenant, the charges must be forwarded in an efficient manner.
The point raised by the tenant has merit. The evidence is that the landlord has not provided the accounts to the tenant in a timely way; it seems the first time the charges were raised was with the claim in the Tribunal. The actions of the landlord were not reasonable in that regard, and therefore it would not be fair to order that the tenant pay five months of utilities, which were not presented earlier.
Of course the tenants have used power in water in the premises, and they must provide a contribution toward those charges to the landlord. But it would not be reasonable to require the tenants to pay five months of charges which are not being raised earlier. Taking a fairness approach, I conclude that the tenant should pay $250 toward the power, and $200 toward the water. That is about half of what the landlord has claimed. Claim 4
The landlord seeks a termination of the tenancy on the basis of the rent arrears.
The tenant said she does not oppose the termination of the tenancy, and states she has requested an earlier release of the tenancy in any event. Analysis
Section 55 of the RTA confirms that when the rent arrears is are more than 21 days on the date the landlord files the application in the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall order termination of the tenancy. That is the case here, so termination is ordered. I note the tenant does not oppose the tenancy being terminated in any event.
I order that possession be returned to the landlord at 11:59 pm on 22 July 2026.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5495690 — Rent arrears at 152 Weatherly Road, Torbay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5495690 — Rent arrears at 152 Weatherly Road, Torbay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions