What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5516849 about?

The tribunal order states: Hugh Milliken must pay Zoe Deveraux and David Deveraux Kelly $2,228.00

How much money was awarded in case 5516849?

Compensation: $2,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5516849?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5516849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13813778-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5516849 about?

The tribunal order states: Hugh Milliken must pay Zoe Deveraux and David Deveraux Kelly $2,228.00

How much money was awarded in case 5516849?

Compensation: $2,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5516849?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5516849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13813778-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 9, 14 Airborne Road, Rosedale, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5516849 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5516849 — net $2,228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,200.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,228.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,228.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5516849 — net $2,228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,200.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,228.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,228.00

Order

Hugh Milliken must pay Zoe Deveraux and David Deveraux Kelly $2,228.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The landlord must repair the rotted window sill on or before Wednesday 15 July 2026.
As an alternative to compliance with order 2, or as a consequence of non- compliance with order 2, the landlord must pay the tenant $500.00.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing and both parties have made applications to the Tenancy Tribunal.
The landlord seeks an order requiring the tenants to pay alleged electricity and water arrears.
The tenants seek compensation for several alleged breaches of s 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. They say the landlord failed to maintain the premises in relation to the heat pump, a leaking window and skylight, and the oven. They also claim that the bond was not lodged and that the repeated issues amounted to a breach of their right to quiet enjoyment. They seek compensation arising from those breaches.
This tenancy arose in February 2026. The landlord and tenants generally agree that the tenants urgently required accommodation after their previous living arrangements fell through. The landlord says he told the tenants that the premises were unlikely to be suitable for them and their two children because it was a one- to two-bedroom unit situated above a commercial unit within a commercial unit title complex.
The tenants say that the landlord assured them that the property was "bulletproof" and that everything was working. They say he advised that the stove may have had some issues, but that if there were any problems they should let him know because he did not live at the property.
After moving in, the tenants discovered that only one of the four stove elements worked and that the oven grill did not function. On or about 24 February 2026 they also discovered that the heat pump was not working. In March 2026 they identified water ingress through a window and skylight. Those issues continued until repairs were ultimately completed in June.
The issues for determination are: a) whether the tenants are liable to pay electricity and water charges; b) whether the landlord breached s 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act by failing to maintain the premises; c) whether there was a breach relating to the bond; and d) whether the repeated breaches amounted to a breach of the tenants' right to quiet enjoyment.
It was apparent during the hearing that the parties communicate in very different ways.
Whilst there were clear breaches, there was also a lack of clarity in parts of the tenants' evidence, and I found them less than forthcoming at times. For example, they stated that the damage to the window sill caused by the leaking window was not observed when they moved into the property because the curtains were closed. Having viewed the photographs, I do not accept that evidence. The damage is so stark that it could not reasonably have gone unnoticed and it is not credible that they viewed the property in daytime whilst the curtains were closed. Even though on this particular point it was inconsequential to my findings it caused me to treat their oral evidence with caution.
Nevertheless, despite some embellishment and a lack of precision in dates and presentation, I am satisfied that the tenants have proven the substance of their claims on the balance of probabilities. The objective evidence demonstrates that the leaking issue was significant.
The landlord gave his evidence in a forthcoming manner. It seemed to me that his failing was in that he conducted himself in a manner that may have been acceptable if renting to a family member, but well short of his statutory obligations under The Residential Tenancies Act. The Act imposes baseline standards recognising the inherent imbalance of power between landlords and tenants who part with a substantial proportion of their income for the opportunity to occupy the premises.

Are the tenants liable for electricity and water?

The landlord and tenants signed a one-page, landlord-drafted tenancy agreement. It recorded that electricity charges would be apportioned on an 80/20 basis.
There is a dispute about the discussions that occurred at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenants say the landlord indicated that his son would only be at the property occasionally. However, they say it eventuated that he spent a significant amount of time there with his girlfriend. They also say that the commercial premises downstairs, which was supplied through the same electricity meter, operated substantial HVAC equipment, and that commercial levies were included within the electricity account.
The landlord says that his son was not there very often and that he believed an 80/20 split was fair. When the tenants disputed that arrangement, he proposed changing it to a 60/40 split because he considered that to be a fair compromise.
The tenants say they simply wanted to calculate a reasonable amount. They asked the landlord to provide previous electricity accounts so that they could compare historic usage and better understand what electricity consumption was attributable to their occupation.
Section 39(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act provides that a tenant is responsible for outgoings only to the extent that they are exclusively attributable to the tenant's occupation of the premises or the tenant's use of facilities.
Here, the residential premises, the commercial premises, and the area occupied by the landlord's son and his girlfriend were all supplied through the same meter. There is no evidence that a check meter was ever installed.
Accordingly, there is no reliable way of identifying electricity or water consumption that was exclusively attributable to the tenants' occupation.
The landlord's claim for electricity and water therefore cannot succeed and is dismissed. Did the landlord breach s 45 by failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? The oven
The tenants say that they notified the landlord on or about 24 February 2026 that only one stove element worked and that the oven grill did not function.
The landlord accepts that, prior to the tenancy commencing, a previous tenant had advised him that the oven may not have been working properly. He says that because he did not live at the property, he asked the tenants to let him know exactly what the problem was once they had moved in.
The landlord produced a receipt showing that he purchased a replacement oven on 28 February 2026, four days after receiving the tenants' text message. He says he delivered it to the property and asked his son, who occupied the adjoining premises, to install it.
The tenants say it was not installed until the end of March. However, there is little evidence supporting that assertion beyond one tenant recalling that it was close to her birthday.
On this issue I prefer the landlord's evidence.
Once notified, the landlord arranged for a replacement oven to be purchased within four days. Although the precise installation date is unclear, I am not satisfied that the tenants have proven there was an unreasonable delay. The landlord's son lived immediately adjacent to the tenancy, and the tenants themselves accepted that he was helpful in resolving maintenance issues, notwithstanding the informal way in which they were managed.
I am therefore not satisfied that there was a breach of s 45 in relation to the oven. The heat pump
The tenants say that on or about 24 February 2026 they switched on the heat pump, which immediately began smoking. They reported the issue to the landlord.
The landlord did not respond until 8 March 2026. His initial communication related only to rent arrears, although he subsequently advised that he would arrange for the heat pump to be repaired that week.
On 9 March 2026 the repair company advised the tenants that the earliest available appointment was 25 March 2026.
The tenants say that a replacement unit was installed on or about 14 April 2026 but that it was not properly connected and therefore did not become operational until 22 April 2026.
The evidence regarding the precise exchanges between the parties was not entirely clear.
I accept that the landlord was unaware of any issue with the heat pump at the commencement of the tenancy. Once notified, however, he arranged for repairs reasonably promptly. When it became apparent that additional work was required because the unit had not been connected, he also arranged for that work to be completed without undue delay.
The landlord's obligation under s 45 is to respond within a reasonable time once he becomes aware of a maintenance issue. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that he failed to do so.
Accordingly, I find there was no breach of s 45 in relation to the heat pump. The leaking window and skylight
The tenants say they first noticed significant leaking through a window and the skylight during March 2026. They initially advised the landlord's son, who occupied the adjoining premises. They say he attended with towels after observing the extent of the water ingress.
The tenants produced photographs showing that the upper window sill was extensively rotted and that water entered through both the window and the skylight.
They estimate that between April and June there were at least six separate incidents of significant water ingress lasting more than three hours.
The tenants communicated the issue directly to the landlord on 26 March, 12 April and again on 14 April 2026.
On 14 April 2026 the landlord acknowledged the issue for the first time and advised that a roofer had been engaged.
The tenants say that a contractor attended without notice on 16 April, inspected the roof, took photographs and advised they would be in contact. Approximately one week later, roofing materials were delivered.
On 5 June 2026 contractors again attended, but because of the weather they were unable to complete the repairs. They returned on 8 June and remained until 12 June replacing the roof.
The tenants say that throughout this period the landlord provided almost no communication. Instead, they only became aware that work was progressing because tradespeople would unexpectedly arrive at the property.
The landlord says he was unaware that there was any significant issue until it was reported to him.
I do not accept that submission.
The photographs establish that the upper window sill was extensively rotted at the commencement of the tenancy. I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the premises were not adequately weathertight.
I acknowledge that this requires an inference. However, I consider it to be a compelling one. Following only a single complaint from the tenants, the landlord commissioned an entire roof replacement without first inspecting the property himself. That response strongly suggests that the issue was recognised as significant from the outset.
The photographs further demonstrate that the water ingress was substantial. Although the precise extent cannot be quantified, it was plainly more than a minor leak.
Landlords are required to provide premises in a reasonable state of repair at the commencement of the tenancy and to maintain them in that condition throughout the tenancy.
Whilst the landlord ultimately arranged for a complete roof replacement, the repairs were not completed until approximately two and a half months after the issue was first reported. During that period he provided virtually no updates to the tenants, and contractors repeatedly attended without notice.
In those circumstances I am satisfied that the landlord breached s 45 by failing to maintain the premises in relation to the leaking roof and window. I have calculated compensation at $200.00 per week for an 11 week period.
The tenants say the leak now appears to have been resolved, although they continue occasionally to hear dripping within the roof cavity. They also seek a work order requiring replacement of the upper window sill, which remains extensively rotted.
I am satisfied that the window sill remains in disrepair.
I therefore make a work order requiring the landlord to repair the upper window sill by Wednesday 15 July 2026.
Section 78(2) provides that, if a work order is not complied with, the landlord must instead pay a specified monetary amount in lieu of compliance.
If the landlord fails or chooses not to comply with that order, he must pay the tenants an additional $500. Quiet enjoyment
I accept the tenants' submission that the prolonged leaking, the repeated attendance of tradespeople without notice, and the landlord's lack of communication substantially interfered with their reasonable peace, comfort and privacy.
Taken cumulatively, those matters amounted to a breach of the tenants' right to quiet enjoyment.
I have taken that breach into account when assessing compensation and have not made a separate award for it.
Whilst the property appears to have shortcomings, it is also clear that it is not well suited to the tenants' family size and living arrangements.
That observation does not diminish the landlord's obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act. However, it may be worthwhile for the tenants to consider obtaining accommodation better suited to their family's needs in order to avoid similar issues in the future. The bond
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to lodge the bond.
The evidence establishes that the tenants paid one week's rent by way of bond and that the landlord did not lodge that bond with the Bond Centre.
However, the tenants also say that they subsequently withheld one week's rent, with the result that they effectively recovered the amount they had paid.
It is unclear precisely when that occurred, and no documentary evidence was produced.
In those circumstances I cannot be satisfied that the landlord failed to lodge the bond within the statutory period before the tenants effectively recovered it themselves.
The tenants have therefore not proven this claim on the balance of probabilities.
That claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because the tenants have been substantially successful in these proceedings, I also award them reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5516849 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 9, 14 Airborne Road, Rosedale, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5516849 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 9, 14 Airborne Road, Rosedale, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for electricity and water?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for electricity and water?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions