Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5500009 — Rent arrears
Decided 14 Jul 2026 · Published 14 Jul 2026 · Application 5500009
- Rent arrears
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
- [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $614.08 from the bond calculated as shown in the table below:
- The Bond Centre is to pay $614.08 from the bond of $3,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
- The balance of the bond of $2,585.92 is to remain at the Bond Centre pending a bond refund form signed by both parties or a further order of the Tribunal following the end of the tenancy.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing on 8 July 2026.
- The tenants advised that they moved out of the premises on or about 11 June 2026 and notified the landlord verbally on 16 June 2026 that they did not wish to continue with the tenancy beyond the fixed term expiry. The landlord applied for termination on 3 July 2026.
- Both parties agree that the tenancy has ended as at 8 July 2026. Landlord claims
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears owed to 8 July 2026 in the sum of $4064.28 and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. The tenants do not dispute the arrears.
- The landlord has applied for water charges owed to 12 June 2026 and has provided water invoices records which prove the amount owing totalling $273.80. The tenants do not dispute these charges. Tenant claim
- [The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and seek compensation and exemplary damages.
- Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
- Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenant claimed that the premises were not provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair as follows:
- The tenants stated that there was rubbish around the exterior of the property in particular in a gap between the outhouse and a retaining wall and that the exterior at the back was overgrown and the fence falling down. The tenant provided photographs in support of the condition of the exterior of the property. The tenants stated that in October 2025 they complained to the landlord as they discovered rubbish when they mowed the lawns and discovered rodents at the property. The landlord arranged for rubbish removal and provided an invoice dated 12 November 2025 for the removal.
- The tenants stated that the rodent problem became worse in Autumn 2026. On 23 March 2026 they notified the landlord that the rodent problem was indoors. The email from the tenant states “The fence is damaged which gives free access, the tree branches that have grown and now sits on the roof, the hole underneath the backdoor, the kitchen cupboards to the dishwasher, the bedroom that smell from underneath the carpet from before we moved in and hidden with cleaning chemicals and now we can’t use as a bedroom. This is urgent and requires your immediate attention.”
- The landlord sought to address the problem by promptly calling a cleaning/pest control company who provided 3 traps. These did not resolve the problem. On 25 March 2026 the tenant notified the landlord that the rats had damaged the hose connection for the dishwasher. A follow up email was sent on 30 March 2026 as no one had come to the property to fix the issue.
- On 1 April 2026 the tenant advised that the plumber had capped the dishwasher but on 2 April the tenant informed the landlord that the repair was unsuccessful and there was still leaking.
- On 7 May 2026 the tenants filed a claim in the Tenancy Tribunal as they were frustrated that after 6 weeks the rodent problem was not resolved.
- The tenants provided extensive photographs showing evidence of rodent droppings on kitchen benches and in cupboards, in the living room, the laundry, the main bedroom and a photograph of a rodent inside. The tenant also provided photographs of multiple holes at the premises where the rodents were entering through the laundry, kitchen and back door area.
- The landlord arranged a handyman to patch some of the holes but these patch- ups were not very successful. In one case there was a gap under the stove and the board loosely attached by the handyman to fill the gap was moved by the rodents five days later. The tenants provided dated photographs showing the patch up job and five days later the gap exposed.
- The landlord disputed that they had failed to maintain the premises and stated that when the tenant raised issues they took them seriously and attempted to resolve the issue. Invoices of other maintenance were provided as evidence that the landlord was proactive with maintenance together with invoices for the rodent traps and the handyman.
- Having considered the evidence I find that on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
- Rodent problems are seasonal and it is not uncommon for there to be issues in autumn and winter. However, I find that for the following reasons there was a failure to maintain in this case: (a)The exterior of the property was provided in poor repair with overgrown trees. (b)There was evidence of holes and gaps in the premises that allowed access for rodents in the laundry, back door and kitchen area. Handyman patch-up repairs to some of these holes were unsuccessful. (c)I am satisfied on the evidence in this case of an overgrown section together with multiple entry holes in the premises that the tenant has proved that it is more likely than not that this contributed to the rodent problem which became apparent during the autumn months. (d)Although the landlord did take steps to attempt to remedy the problem when notified by the tenant these were ineffective. (e)The landlord did not provide evidence of a report from a pest control company to say that they had thoroughly investigated the problem and implemented a comprehensive pest control plan.
- I accept that the property manager sought to address issues raised and that the failure was not intentional, however, there is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe (see Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]). In this case the repairs were ineffective and the result was an unsanitary environment for the tenants.
- The landlord has committed an unlawful act. Exemplary damages
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- I have found that the landlord attempted to address the issues when raised and therefore the unlawful act is not intentional. Therefore, no exemplary damages will be ordered. Compensation
- The tenants seek compensation for the effects of living in premises with a rodent problem.
- The tenants stated that the effect on them of the rodent problem was that the premises were not clean and safe for the three young children in the home. They stated that the rodents ate their food and they found evidence of rubbish left behind in the kitchen cupboard which had holes at the back of it.
- The tenants stated that the impact of the rodents was throughout the premises and impacted their use of most rooms to the extent that by the end of the tenancy they were all sleeping in one room.
- I find in the circumstances it is appropriate to order compensation by way of a one third rent reduction from 30 March 2026 (one week after first notification to the landlord and the date the tenants sent a follow up email) until the tenancy ended on 8 July 2026. This is calculated as $266.00 x 14 weeks = $3724.00. Filing fee/ Suppression
- Because both parties have had success with their applications I make no order for reimbursement of either filing fee.
- The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Both parties have been substantially successful with their applications. The landlord is seeking suppression of identifying details in any publication of this order.
- If a party has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Having considered the factors in this case I order suppression of all party identifying details.