What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5518590 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,100.00 (BN-55058649) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5518590?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5518590?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Mould & damp, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5518590?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13983082-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5518590 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,100.00 (BN-55058649) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5518590?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5518590?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Mould & damp, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5518590?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13983082-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 17, 2 Onehunga Harbour Road, Onehunga, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5518590 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat Flat 17, 2 Onehunga Harbour Road, Onehunga, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5518590 — 14-day notice | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5518590. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Filing Fee Property damage

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,100.00 (BN-55058649) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 15 July 2026.
This is an unusual case. Initially, the tenant was the landlord’s property manager who advertised the premises to try to find the landlord a tenant. The tenant ran their own property management company from home at the time. They wanted a separate premises from which to run their business to make it more legitimate. The tenant liked the landlord’s property, because it was close to a business complex and visible from the motorway. The tenant proposed that they rent the premises from the landlord and convert the garage into an office. The idea was that the tenant would use the garage for their office and would sublet the residential part of the premises upstairs. The landlord agreed and the parties signed a residential tenancy agreement to formalise their arrangement.
The premises are a townhouse, which is on a unit title. There is a Body Corporate, which has operational rules that all unit title owners must follow. Shortly after the tenant began, the tenant fixed a large business sign to the outside of the premises above the garage. This was a breach of the Body Corporate operational rules and the tenant was required to remove the sign. The tenant claims the inability to fix a sign to the outside of the premises meant they were unable to run their business. As a result, the tenant gave notice to end the tenancy. The problem was that the tenant had already incurred costs in turning the garage into an office. The tenant claims the landlord’s breach of various provisions of the tenancy agreement and RTA caused the tenant to suffer financial loss. The landlord filed their own cross-application against the tenant. The issues I must determine are: a. Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction? b. Did the landlord provide the tenant with a signed copy of the tenancy agreement before the tenancy began? c. Does the tenancy agreement include a statement of the Body Corporate operational rules? d. Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness? e. Do the premises comply with the healthy homes standards? f. Should the landlord pay the tenant compensation for failing to take an actual water meter reading at the beginning of the tenancy? g. Should the landlord pay the tenant compensation for failing to advise the date for rubbish collection? h. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? i. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord for the installation of the heat pump in the garage? j. Should the terms of the tenancy agreement be varied so as to make the tenancy a fixed-term tenancy for 12 months, rather than a periodic tenancy? k. Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred to the premises during the tenancy?
Before determining these issues, discuss some general legal principles that apply to the case.

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Standard of proof

Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
A lot of evidence was given at the hearing. Whilst I have considered all of the evidence and submissions made by the parties, this decision will only refer to the relevant parts. Compensation – the law generally
Both parties seek compensation for alleged breaches of the tenancy agreement and RTA.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy, distress, inconvenience and emotional suffering.
The following factors are relevant when deciding to award compensation: 1 • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

The law

Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. 1 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667.
Section 4 states that the Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.
Section 2(1) states that “tenancy”, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent. The term “residential premises” is defined as meaning any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful.
Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances in which a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Analysis
The first issue I must determine is whether this was a tenancy. I find it was for the following reasons: a. The premises are “residential premises”, because it is a three bedroom townhouse that is used, or intended for occupation by any person, as a place of residence. b. The tenant had the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent of $700.00 per week.
The next issue I must determine is whether the tenancy was for “residential purposes.” I find it was. Although the tenant intended to use the garage for a commercial purpose, the rest of the premises were to be used as a place of residence for subtenants. The garage only forms a small part of the premises. Therefore, I find the premises were intended to be used principally for residential purposes.
None of the exceptions in section 5 RTA apply to exclude the tenancy.
For all of these reasons, the Tribunal has jurisdiction. TENANT’S CLAIMS Did the landlord provide the tenant with a signed copy of the tenancy agreement before the tenancy began? The law
Section 13A(2) RTA requires a landlord to sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant (whether the tenant has signed it or not), before the tenancy begins. 2 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the parties met on 23 May 2026 to sign the tenancy agreement however, the landlord did not provide them with a copy until 31 May 2026.
The landlord claims they asked the tenant to take a photograph of the signed tenancy agreement on 23 May 2026 and the tenant declined. The landlord accepts they did not provide the tenant with a copy of the tenancy agreement before the tenancy began but claims this was because they were sick the week the tenancy began. The landlord claims they provided a copy of the tenancy agreement on 31 May 2026. Analysis
The landlord signed the tenancy agreement on 23 May 2026. The landlord accepts they did not provide the tenant with a copy before the tenancy began on 25 May 2026. For these reasons, I find the landlord breached section 13A(2) RTA.
The tenant seeks compensation for the breach. I decline to order compensation for the following reasons: a. The breach is minor. The landlord provided the tenant with a copy of the tenancy agreement 7 days after the tenancy began. This is not a case where the tenant has not been provided with a copy of the tenancy agreement at all or where there has been a significant delay. b. The tenant did not suffer any financial loss as a result of the breach, nor did they suffer any distress, inconvenience or emotional suffering. c. I am convinced the landlord was sick shortly before the tenancy began and this caused the delay in providing the tenant with a copy of the tenancy agreement. The landlord submitted a copy of their work pay slip for the period 25 May 2026 – 31 May 2026. This confirms the landlord took 23 hours 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 13(2). of sick leave during this time. The landlord has a good reason for sending a copy of the tenancy agreement 7 days late.
For all of these reasons, I do not consider the interests of justice warrant an order for compensation. Does the tenancy agreement include a statement of the Body Corporate operational rules? The law
Section 16B RTA applies to residential premises that are held in a stratum estate under the Unit Titles Act 2010, which the tenancy address is. Section 16B relevantly states: 16BBody corporate rules part of tenancy agreement (1)... (2)Body corporate operational rules made under the Unit Titles Act 2010 that affect a tenant of premises to which this section applies are taken to be terms of the tenancy agreement. (3)A tenancy agreement that creates or evidences the letting of premises to which this section applies must set out a statement of the rules referred to in subsection (2). Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the landlord did not provide a copy of the Body Corporate operational rules with the tenancy agreement. The tenant claims the rules do not permit a sign to be fixed to the external part of the unit. The tenant claims if they had known this, they never would have signed the tenancy agreement and incurred costs converting the garage into an office. The tenant claims that fixing a sign to the external part of the unit was an important part of their business and marketing plan. The premises are visible from the motorway and the tenant hoped that people would see the sign whilst travelling on the motorway. The tenant also claims that every business has a sign, which adds to its legitimacy.
The landlord accepts the tenancy agreement does not include a statement of the Body Corporate operational rules. They claim they were unaware they needed to provide this. The landlord claims the tenant was acting as their property manager up to 1 June 2026 and should have advised them of the need to provide a statement of the rules with the tenancy agreement. The landlord claims the tenant, as a property manager, has more knowledge about tenancy law and the RTA. The landlord relied on the tenant’s knowledge and expertise. Further, the landlord claims the tenant never asked them for a copy of the Body Corporate operational rules. Analysis
The tenancy agreement does not contain a statement of the Body Corporate operational rules. Therefore, I find the landlord breached section 16B(3) RTA.
The tenant seeks compensation of $14,214.36 for the breach, broken down as follows: ItemCost Acoustic wall panel installed in garage $2,300.00 Garage carpet installed in garage$1,000.00 Exterior sign board$750.00 Interior decorated board$450.00 Removal of exterior board$250.00 Tables purchased$500.00 Used sofa purchased$250.00 Power bill$98.11 Printer$1,208.00 Garage lock$130.00 Advertisement$264.50 Advertisement$264.50 Advertisement$109.25 Rent paid$2,300.00 Time spent – 70 hours x $50.00 per hour $3,500.00 Travel Expenses$840.00 Total$14,214.36
The tenant included the bond of $2,100.00 in their table of compensation filed. I have not included this in the table above, because a refund of the bond is a separate issue from compensation.
Despite the landlord’s breach of section 16B(3) RTA, I decline to order compensation. This is because I am not convinced there is a causal link between the breach and the costs incurred by the tenant.
Assuming for a moment that the Body Corporate operational rules permitted a sign to be fixed to the external part of the unit, the tenant would still have needed the prior written consent of the landlord to do this. Section 42(1) RTA states: 42Tenant’s fixtures etc (1)The tenant shall not affix any fixture to the premises, or make any renovation, alteration, or addition of or to the premises, except – (a)in accordance with the tenancy agreement; or (b)with the prior written consent of the landlord.
The tenancy agreement states: Special Conditions – Tenancy Agreement 1. Use of Premises and Garage 1.1 The Tenant may use the premises for residential purposes, including operating a business and accommodating boarders. 1.2 The garage may be used for business purposes, subject to: Landlord funding the installation of a heat pump Tenant arranging and paying for garage carpeting 2. Property Works Landlord to arrange: Carpet cleaning (including dog odour removal) Repainting of third-floor door sills Tenant to arrange (invoiced to Landlord unless stated): Healthy Homes report Garage remote programming Stove rangehood repair Garage heat pump installation Tenant direct cost: Garage carpeting (no reimbursement) 3. Conflict of Interest 3.1 The tenant will cease acting as the Landlord’s property agent from 1 June 2026. 3.2 This ensures clear separation of roles and avoids any conflict of interest. 4. General 4.1 All works to be arranged in a reasonable timeframe. 4.2 All other standard tenancy terms apply unless varied by these conditions.
The tenant claims the fact that this clause permits them to use the premises to operate a business means they are allowed to fix a sign to the exterior of the premises. I disagree. The clause does not mention signage at all. Whilst signage might be an important part of marketing for a business, the way in which different businesses use signs varies widely. Some businesses have signs fixed to the exterior of the premises, whilst others have portable signs that sit near the entrance or on the roadside. It cannot be said that every person who agrees to allow part of their residential premises to be used for business purposes implicitly gives consent for a sign to be fixed to the external part of the premises. If this is what is agreed, then it needs to be clearly stated in the tenancy agreement.
No written communication from the landlord permitting the tenant to fix a sign to the outside of the premises was submitted. The tenant claims the landlord gave their verbal consent for this to occur. No supporting evidence was submitted of this and the landlord denies it was the case. Both parties submitted copies of emails exchanged between each other on 11 and 12 May 2026. The email dated 11 May 2026 was sent by the landlord and outlines important aspects of the tenancy the parties have agreed upon. The tenant responded to the landlord’s email on 12 May 2026 stating: ...I am pleased to confirm that I am in full agreement with all of the arrangements you have summarised in your email...
Neither email refers to signage at all. In the absence of any supporting evidence, I am not convinced that the landlord gave their oral consent for the tenant to fix a sign to the outside of the premises. In any case, section 42(1)(b) RTA is clear that written consent is required.
The tenant’s claim that they would not have signed the tenancy agreement if they knew the Body Corporate operational rules prohibited them from fixing a sign to the outside of the unit does not account for the fact that, regardless of what the rules say, the tenancy agreement does not permit this, and the landlord did not give their prior written consent. In other words, the tenant would have suffered the same loss, even if the rules permitted a sign to be fixed to the outside of the unit.
There are also other intervening factors that contributed to the tenant’s loss. First is the fact that the tenant was acting as the as the landlord’s property manager up to 1 June 2026. The tenant claims they stopped acting as the property manager on 25 May 2026 however, the “Special Conditions” clause of the tenancy agreement clearly states that the tenant will cease acting as the landlord’s property agent on 1 June 2026. As the landlord’s property manager, the tenant had a duty of care to ensure that they provided the landlord with appropriate advice to ensure compliance with the RTA. This includes the need to provide a statement of the Body Corporate operational rules. The tenant did not provide this advice. Their negligence contributed to the landlord’s breach and consequently, the tenant’s own decision to sign the tenancy agreement and incur associated costs.
The second intervening factor is the failure by the tenant to undertake their own due diligence. This was not a typical residential tenancy. It was a tenancy for residential and commercial purposes. In respect of the commercial aspect, the tenant had a duty to undertake their own due diligence to ensure they were able to run their business from the premises in the way in which they wanted. This includes, investigating whether there was any impediment that prohibited them from fixing a sign to the outside of the premises. The tenant did not do this. They did not seek expert advice, including legal advice, or request a copy of the Body Corporate operational rules. The landlord is not responsible for financial loss arising from the tenant’s failure to undertake appropriate due diligence.
For all of these reasons, I am not convinced there is a causal link between the landlord’s breach and costs incurred by the tenant.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is dismissed.

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

The law

The landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. 3
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 4 It does not mean commercially clean, 5 spotless 6 or to a hotel or motel standard. 7 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 8 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the premises were not provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness, because the kitchen was not clean, the cupboards were dirty, the upstairs toilet was not clean, the garage was not clean and the backyard was not tidy. The tenant did not submit any photographs. They submitted a copy of a text message sent to the cleaner on 24 May 2026, listing the areas that required further cleaning. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1)(a). 4 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 6 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 8 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].
The landlord claims the premises were provided in a very reasonable state of cleanliness. They submitted photographs of the premises taken on 25 May 2026. Analysis
The photographs of the premises taken at the beginning of the tenancy are the best evidence of its condition. These show the premises to be in a very reasonable state of cleanliness. No rubbish is present. The floors have been vacuumed and mopped. The bench surfaces have been wiped down. The kitchen, bathroom and toilet are all very clean. For these reasons, I find the landlord provided the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the premises comply with the healthy homes standards?

The law

Section 45(1)(bb) RTA requires a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards (HHS). The HHS are found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
Regulation 23 relates to ventilation and states: 23Mechanical ventilation for kitchens and bathrooms (1)Each kitchen and bathroom in the premises must have installed in it – (a)an extractor fan; or (b)qualifying ventilation. (2)For a kitchen that has an extractor fan, - (a)the fan and all exhaust ducting must have a diameter of at least 150mm; or (b)the fan and all exhaust ducting must have an exhaust capacity of at least 50 l/s.
“Extractor fan” is defined in regulation 3 as meaning “an extractor fan that vents extracted air to the outdoors.”
“Qualifying ventilation” is also defined in regulation 3 as meaning: (a)Mechanical ventilation that – (i)Is designed to vent extracted air continuously from residential premises to the outdoors; and (ii)For a kitchen or bathroom, extracts the air directly from the room; and (iii)Was installed in premises or a tenancy building that first received building consent on or after 1 November 2019; and (iv)Was part of the original building consent for the premises or tenancy building; and (v)Continues to meet the requirements of the building consent; or (b)Mechanical ventilation that – (i)Is designed to vent extracted air continuously from residential premises to the outdoors; and (ii)For a kitchen or bathroom, extracts the air directly from the room; and (iii)Is designed to provide ventilation for multiple rooms; and (iv)For a kitchen, has an exhaust capacity of at least 12 l/s; and (v)For a bathroom, has an exhaust capacity of at least 10 l/s.
Regulation 24 defines when a kitchen is exempt from needing to comply with the ventilation requirements. It states: 24Exemption from mechanical ventilation standard if extractor fan not reasonably practicable to install (1)A kitchen or bathroom need not comply with regulation 23 if all of the following apply: (a)at the commencement of the tenancy, - (i)the room does not have an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation: (ii)it is not reasonably practicable to install an extractor fan so as to comply with the requirements of regulation 23(2) and (3): (b)when the room was built or converted into a kitchen or bathroom, not having an extractor fan was lawful: (c)if not having an extractor fan was lawful only because the room met alternative ventilation requirements, at the commencement of the tenancy the room still meets those requirements.
Regulation 4 defines the meaning of “not reasonably practicable to install.” It states: 4Meaning of not reasonably practicable to install It is not reasonably practicable to install something at any premises or tenancy building if, because of the way the premises or tenancy building is designed or built, - (a)A professional installer cannot access the relevant area of the premises or tenancy building to install the thing without – (i)Carrying out substantial building work; or (ii)Causing substantial damage to the premises or tenancy building; or (b)A professional installer cannot install the thing without creating greater risks to the health or safety of any person than are normally acceptable when something of that kind is being installed by a professional installer; or (c)It is otherwise not reasonably practicable for a professional installer to install the thing. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the premises do not comply with the HHS because the rangehood in the kitchen does not vent extracted air to the outdoors. The tenant claims that the parties agreed that the tenant would be responsible for organising a healthy homes assessment report to be completed in their role as a property manager however, they ceased working in this capacity on 25 May 2026. Henceforth, the tenant claims it was the landlord’s responsibility to have the premises assessed and ensure compliance with the HHS.
The tenant claims they instructed Prime Services to complete an assessment. The tenant did not submit an assessment report from Prime Services, but claims the assessor verbally told them that the premises do not comply because the rangehood does not vent to the outside. The tenant submitted copies of text messages between themselves, and a person called “Ganesh”, whom they claim works at Prime Services. The tenant also submitted copies of text messages between Ganesh and the landlord. The tenant claims these text messages support their claim regarding the rangehood.
The landlord accepts that the rangehood does not vent to the outdoors. They claim the Body Corporate operational rules do not permit them to install an exhaust system that vents to the outdoors. The landlord claims they have requested confirmation of this from the Body Corporate but have not received it to date. The landlord claims the rangehood has a charcoal filter, which is specifically designed for extractor fans that vent back into the kitchen instead of outdoors. Analysis
Regulation 23(1) of the HHS requires the kitchen to have an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation. An extractor fan and qualifying ventilation must, among other things, vent extracted air to the outside. The landlord accepts the rangehood in the kitchen does not do this. Therefore, I find the kitchen did not comply with the ventilation requirements of the HHS at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord did not submit sufficient evidence to convince me, on the balance of probabilities, that the kitchen is exempt from needing to comply with the HHS. A copy of the Body Corporate operational rules was provided. There is no express rule that would appear to prohibit the landlord form installing a rangehood that vents to the outside or an extractor fan in a different part of the kitchen. It is not uncommon for extractor fans to be installed in windows in kitchens of premises that are a unit title.
For all of these reasons, I find the premises did not comply with the ventilation requirements of the HHS at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach. I decline to order compensation for the following reasons: a. The tenancy was short and lasted from 25 May 2026 to 23 June 2026. The tenant did not live in the premises during this time and therefore, did not suffer any lack of amenity. b. The photographs of the premises do not show any moisture, mould or other indicator that would suggest the premises pose a health risk. On the contrary, the premises appear very modern, clean and appealing in the photographs. c. The tenant was acting as the landlord’s property manager up to 1 June 2026. The “Special Conditions” clause of the tenancy agreement states that the tenant is to arrange a healthy homes report. These unusual circumstances understandably led the landlord to believe that the tenant, in their capacity as the property manager, was taking care of the HHS aspect of the tenancy.
For these reasons, I do not find the substantial merits and justice of the case warrant an order for compensation. Should the landlord pay the tenant compensation for failing to take an actual water meter reading at the beginning of the tenancy?
The tenant takes issue with the fact that the landlord did not complete an actual water meter reading at the beginning of the tenancy.
The RTA does not impose an obligation on landlords to complete an actual water meter reading at the beginning of the tenancy. Section 39(3) RTA states that a tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises and use of the facilities. This includes water. 9 Where a landlord fails to undertake an actual water meter reading at the beginning of the tenancy, there may be issues in determining what proportion of subsequent water rates invoices the tenant is liable to pay. This is because, in the absence of an actual water meter reading, it is difficult to prove what proportion of water consumed is exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises and use of the facilities. In this case, however, only one water rates invoice was issued during the tenancy, which the landlord paid in full.
The tenant has not suffered any financial loss as a result of the landlord not undertaking an actual water meter reading at the beginning of the tenancy. For this reason, the tenant’s claim for compensation is dismissed. Should the landlord pay the tenant compensation for failing to advise the date for rubbish collection?
The tenant claims the landlord did not advise them of the date for rubbish collection, which meant they had to make enquiries with the neighbours.
Neither the tenancy agreement, nor RTA, imposes an obligation on the landlord to advise the tenant of the date for rubbish collection. For this reason, this claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

The law

Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which they are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
A landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 39(3). circumstances. As to what is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy it. 10
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach. 11 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 12
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 13 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the landlord failed to cover two, relatively large sized dog doors in the garage. The first dog door is in an internal door in the garage, which provided access to the rest of the house. The second dog door is in a glass door at the rear of the garage. The tenant claims the presence of the dog doors was a security concern for them and any files they might keep in the garage as part of their business. The tenant was concerned that people living upstairs might be able to access the garage through the internal dog door. Similarly, the tenant was concerned that strangers might be able to access the garage through the dog door in the rear glass door.
The tenant claims they asked the landlord to board up the dog door in the internal door and replace the glass pane in the rear door. The tenant claims the landlord did not do this.
The landlord claims the tenant was not concerned about the dog doors for security reasons, but because they believed the dog doors did not suit the aesthetics of the garage.
The landlord claims the rear glass door has double-glazing and the dog door is secure. The landlord claims they have lived at the premises for 3 years and never experienced a break in. 10 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 11 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 12 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 13 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. Analysis
The first issue I must determine is whether the dog doors were in a state of disrepair. I find they were not. This is because no evidence was given about the dog doors not working properly. The evidence given was about how the tenant perceived the dog doors to be a security risk for their business or did not consider them to be visually appealing. It is very common for residential premises to have dog or cat doors. Pet doors do not pose an unreasonable security risk. A landlord is not required to repair or replace a pet door, unless something is wrong with it. I am not convinced there was anything wrong with the dog doors in this case.
I am also not convinced, on the balance of probabilities, that there was any agreement that the landlord would remove the dog doors. No written evidence was submitted to support this. The tenancy agreement does not state this. The emails between the parties dated 11 and 12 May 2026 include all of the important terms of the agreement prior to signing. The dog doors are not mentioned.
For all of these reasons, I find the landlord did not have a duty to remove or replace the dog doors.
This claim is dismissed. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS Should the tenant reimburse the landlord $2,200.00 for the purchase and installation of a heat pump in the garage? Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims there was no need to install a heat pump in the garage however, the landlord agreed to cover the costs to do this as part of the agreement between the parties. The landlord claims this was because they were under the impression that the tenancy would be long-term, not one month. The landlord claims that they were not provided with a quote by the tenant or given an opportunity to choose between suppliers. The landlord claims the tenant unilaterally chose a heat pump and organised for its installation without consultation. The landlord has paid the invoice, but claims the cost of $2,200.00 is too high.
The tenant claims that the cost of $2,200.00 to purchase and install the heat pump is reasonable. The tenant claims the heat pump is a 3.5kw Panasonic heat pump. Analysis
The “Special Conditions” clause of the tenancy agreement states: Landlord funding the installation of a heat pump
The email sent by the landlord on 11 May 2026 and agreed to by the tenant on 12 May 2026 states: Garage heat pump installation – Arif to arrange and invoice to Jesh
From this evidence, I find that the parties agreed that the tenant would organise for the purchase and installation of a heat pump in the garage and the landlord would cover the cost. There is no mention of the need for the tenant to consult with the landlord first or seek their prior approval. I agree with the tenant’s submission that $2,200.00 is reasonable. The Tribunal sees numerous cases involving heat pumps. $2,200.00 does not stand out to me as being unusually high for the purchase and installation of a 3.5kw Panasonic heat pump.
For all of these reasons, this claim is dismissed. Should the tenancy agreement be varied from a periodic tenancy to a fixed-term tenancy of 12 months? The law
Section 78 RTA defines the types of orders the Tribunal may make. Section 78(1)(g) states: Where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement between the parties has been induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake, or that any writing purporting to express the agreement between the parties does not accord with their true agreement, an order varying, or setting aside, the agreement or the writing (either wholly or in part). Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims the parties agreed that the tenancy would be a long-term tenancy, not a periodic tenancy. The landlord claims they never would have spent money on things like a heat pump in the garage if the tenancy was going to be short. The landlord accepts that they drafted the tenancy agreement and that it states the tenancy is periodic. The landlord claims this is a mistake and the parties actually agreed to a long-term tenancy.
The tenant denies there was ever any agreement or representation that the tenancy would be long-term. Analysis
The starting point is that the tenancy agreement is a complete and final record of the parties’ agreement. Insufficient evidence was submitted to convince me, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenancy agreement does not accord with the parties’ true intentions and should be varied.
The emails sent by the parties on 11 and 12 May 2026 discuss the terms of the proposed agreement prior to signing. No mention is made about the length of the tenancy. The landlord’s email relevantly states: Tenancy Details • You will take over the property as a tenant, using it to run your business and for boarder income. • Rent will be $700 per week, commencing Monday, 25 May 2026. • You (or your business entity) will be the named party on the tenancy agreement. • The rent will be fixed for one year and reviewed annually. • We discussed a potential increased to $730 per week from the second year, subject to market conditions, with future reviews to follow accordingly.
The landlord’s reference to the rent being fixed for one year is simply a restatement of section 24(1)(d) RTA, which states that the rent may not be increased within the first 12 months of the tenancy. I do not find that this amounts to an agreement that the tenancy itself will endure for one year. Similarly, the fact that the potential rent for the second year of the tenancy is discussed does not amount to an agreement or assurance that the tenancy will continue for at least one year. No clear evidence of any agreement between the parties that the tenancy would be fixed for one year was submitted. In the absence of this kind of evidence, I am not convinced that the fact that the tenancy agreement states the tenancy is periodic is a mistake.
For these reasons, I decline to vary the terms of the tenancy agreement to a fixed- term tenancy. Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred to the premises during the tenancy? The law
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 14 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims a white wardrobe in the garage was removed by the tenant without the landlord’s permission on 23 May 2026. The landlord claims the wardrobe was fixed to the garage with screws. The landlord claims the tenant did not like the wardrobe, because it did not fit with the décor they intended for the garage space. The landlord claims they incurred costs in organising for the removal of the wardrobe.
The tenant claims the wardrobe was fixed to the garage with one screw. The tenant claims it needed to be removed to install acoustic panels. The tenant claims they had the landlord’s verbal permission to remove the wardrobe. Analysis
The tenancy began on 25 May 2026. The alleged damage occurred on 23 May 2026, before the tenancy began.
The Tribunal only has jurisdiction to determine disputes that relate to a tenancy to which the RTA applies. 15 The RTA applies once a tenancy begins, not beforehand. This means the Tribunal can only consider breaches of tenant obligations under the RTA that occur during a tenancy. Actions that occur before the tenancy began are outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Because the damage did not occur during the tenancy, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this claim. For this reason, it is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful with their application. Therefore, I do not order either party to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant’s written application requests name suppression. Because the tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful with their application, their request for name suppression is declined. 16 14 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 15 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 77(1). 16 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 95A(1).
The landlord’s written application does not request name suppression. For this reason, and because the landlord has also not been wholly or substantially successful with their application, I decline to order suppression of the landlord’s name.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5518590. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Filing Fee Property damage

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,100.00 (BN-55058649) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 15 July 2026.
This is an unusual case. Initially, the tenant was the landlord’s property manager who advertised the premises to try to find the landlord a tenant. The tenant ran their own property management company from home at the time. They wanted a separate premises from which to run their business to make it more legitimate. The tenant liked the landlord’s property, because it was close to a business complex and visible from the motorway. The tenant proposed that they rent the premises from the landlord and convert the garage into an office. The idea was that the tenant would use the garage for their office and would sublet the residential part of the premises upstairs. The landlord agreed and the parties signed a residential tenancy agreement to formalise their arrangement.
The premises are a townhouse, which is on a unit title. There is a Body Corporate, which has operational rules that all unit title owners must follow. Shortly after the tenant began, the tenant fixed a large business sign to the outside of the premises above the garage. This was a breach of the Body Corporate operational rules and the tenant was required to remove the sign. The tenant claims the inability to fix a sign to the outside of the premises meant they were unable to run their business. As a result, the tenant gave notice to end the tenancy. The problem was that the tenant had already incurred costs in turning the garage into an office. The tenant claims the landlord’s breach of various provisions of the tenancy agreement and RTA caused the tenant to suffer financial loss. The landlord filed their own cross-application against the tenant. The issues I must determine are: a. Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction? b. Did the landlord provide the tenant with a signed copy of the tenancy agreement before the tenancy began? c. Does the tenancy agreement include a statement of the Body Corporate operational rules? d. Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness? e. Do the premises comply with the healthy homes standards? f. Should the landlord pay the tenant compensation for failing to take an actual water meter reading at the beginning of the tenancy? g. Should the landlord pay the tenant compensation for failing to advise the date for rubbish collection? h. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? i. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord for the installation of the heat pump in the garage? j. Should the terms of the tenancy agreement be varied so as to make the tenancy a fixed-term tenancy for 12 months, rather than a periodic tenancy? k. Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred to the premises during the tenancy?
Before determining these issues, discuss some general legal principles that apply to the case.

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Standard of proof

Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
A lot of evidence was given at the hearing. Whilst I have considered all of the evidence and submissions made by the parties, this decision will only refer to the relevant parts. Compensation – the law generally
Both parties seek compensation for alleged breaches of the tenancy agreement and RTA.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy, distress, inconvenience and emotional suffering.
The following factors are relevant when deciding to award compensation: 1 • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

The law

Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. 1 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667.
Section 4 states that the Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.
Section 2(1) states that “tenancy”, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent. The term “residential premises” is defined as meaning any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful.
Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances in which a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Analysis
The first issue I must determine is whether this was a tenancy. I find it was for the following reasons: a. The premises are “residential premises”, because it is a three bedroom townhouse that is used, or intended for occupation by any person, as a place of residence. b. The tenant had the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent of $700.00 per week.
The next issue I must determine is whether the tenancy was for “residential purposes.” I find it was. Although the tenant intended to use the garage for a commercial purpose, the rest of the premises were to be used as a place of residence for subtenants. The garage only forms a small part of the premises. Therefore, I find the premises were intended to be used principally for residential purposes.
None of the exceptions in section 5 RTA apply to exclude the tenancy.
For all of these reasons, the Tribunal has jurisdiction. TENANT’S CLAIMS Did the landlord provide the tenant with a signed copy of the tenancy agreement before the tenancy began? The law
Section 13A(2) RTA requires a landlord to sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant (whether the tenant has signed it or not), before the tenancy begins. 2 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the parties met on 23 May 2026 to sign the tenancy agreement however, the landlord did not provide them with a copy until 31 May 2026.
The landlord claims they asked the tenant to take a photograph of the signed tenancy agreement on 23 May 2026 and the tenant declined. The landlord accepts they did not provide the tenant with a copy of the tenancy agreement before the tenancy began but claims this was because they were sick the week the tenancy began. The landlord claims they provided a copy of the tenancy agreement on 31 May 2026. Analysis
The landlord signed the tenancy agreement on 23 May 2026. The landlord accepts they did not provide the tenant with a copy before the tenancy began on 25 May 2026. For these reasons, I find the landlord breached section 13A(2) RTA.
The tenant seeks compensation for the breach. I decline to order compensation for the following reasons: a. The breach is minor. The landlord provided the tenant with a copy of the tenancy agreement 7 days after the tenancy began. This is not a case where the tenant has not been provided with a copy of the tenancy agreement at all or where there has been a significant delay. b. The tenant did not suffer any financial loss as a result of the breach, nor did they suffer any distress, inconvenience or emotional suffering. c. I am convinced the landlord was sick shortly before the tenancy began and this caused the delay in providing the tenant with a copy of the tenancy agreement. The landlord submitted a copy of their work pay slip for the period 25 May 2026 – 31 May 2026. This confirms the landlord took 23 hours 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 13(2). of sick leave during this time. The landlord has a good reason for sending a copy of the tenancy agreement 7 days late.
For all of these reasons, I do not consider the interests of justice warrant an order for compensation. Does the tenancy agreement include a statement of the Body Corporate operational rules? The law
Section 16B RTA applies to residential premises that are held in a stratum estate under the Unit Titles Act 2010, which the tenancy address is. Section 16B relevantly states: 16BBody corporate rules part of tenancy agreement (1)... (2)Body corporate operational rules made under the Unit Titles Act 2010 that affect a tenant of premises to which this section applies are taken to be terms of the tenancy agreement. (3)A tenancy agreement that creates or evidences the letting of premises to which this section applies must set out a statement of the rules referred to in subsection (2). Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the landlord did not provide a copy of the Body Corporate operational rules with the tenancy agreement. The tenant claims the rules do not permit a sign to be fixed to the external part of the unit. The tenant claims if they had known this, they never would have signed the tenancy agreement and incurred costs converting the garage into an office. The tenant claims that fixing a sign to the external part of the unit was an important part of their business and marketing plan. The premises are visible from the motorway and the tenant hoped that people would see the sign whilst travelling on the motorway. The tenant also claims that every business has a sign, which adds to its legitimacy.
The landlord accepts the tenancy agreement does not include a statement of the Body Corporate operational rules. They claim they were unaware they needed to provide this. The landlord claims the tenant was acting as their property manager up to 1 June 2026 and should have advised them of the need to provide a statement of the rules with the tenancy agreement. The landlord claims the tenant, as a property manager, has more knowledge about tenancy law and the RTA. The landlord relied on the tenant’s knowledge and expertise. Further, the landlord claims the tenant never asked them for a copy of the Body Corporate operational rules. Analysis
The tenancy agreement does not contain a statement of the Body Corporate operational rules. Therefore, I find the landlord breached section 16B(3) RTA.
The tenant seeks compensation of $14,214.36 for the breach, broken down as follows: ItemCost Acoustic wall panel installed in garage $2,300.00 Garage carpet installed in garage$1,000.00 Exterior sign board$750.00 Interior decorated board$450.00 Removal of exterior board$250.00 Tables purchased$500.00 Used sofa purchased$250.00 Power bill$98.11 Printer$1,208.00 Garage lock$130.00 Advertisement$264.50 Advertisement$264.50 Advertisement$109.25 Rent paid$2,300.00 Time spent – 70 hours x $50.00 per hour $3,500.00 Travel Expenses$840.00 Total$14,214.36
The tenant included the bond of $2,100.00 in their table of compensation filed. I have not included this in the table above, because a refund of the bond is a separate issue from compensation.
Despite the landlord’s breach of section 16B(3) RTA, I decline to order compensation. This is because I am not convinced there is a causal link between the breach and the costs incurred by the tenant.
Assuming for a moment that the Body Corporate operational rules permitted a sign to be fixed to the external part of the unit, the tenant would still have needed the prior written consent of the landlord to do this. Section 42(1) RTA states: 42Tenant’s fixtures etc (1)The tenant shall not affix any fixture to the premises, or make any renovation, alteration, or addition of or to the premises, except – (a)in accordance with the tenancy agreement; or (b)with the prior written consent of the landlord.
The tenancy agreement states: Special Conditions – Tenancy Agreement 1. Use of Premises and Garage 1.1 The Tenant may use the premises for residential purposes, including operating a business and accommodating boarders. 1.2 The garage may be used for business purposes, subject to: Landlord funding the installation of a heat pump Tenant arranging and paying for garage carpeting 2. Property Works Landlord to arrange: Carpet cleaning (including dog odour removal) Repainting of third-floor door sills Tenant to arrange (invoiced to Landlord unless stated): Healthy Homes report Garage remote programming Stove rangehood repair Garage heat pump installation Tenant direct cost: Garage carpeting (no reimbursement) 3. Conflict of Interest 3.1 The tenant will cease acting as the Landlord’s property agent from 1 June 2026. 3.2 This ensures clear separation of roles and avoids any conflict of interest. 4. General 4.1 All works to be arranged in a reasonable timeframe. 4.2 All other standard tenancy terms apply unless varied by these conditions.
The tenant claims the fact that this clause permits them to use the premises to operate a business means they are allowed to fix a sign to the exterior of the premises. I disagree. The clause does not mention signage at all. Whilst signage might be an important part of marketing for a business, the way in which different businesses use signs varies widely. Some businesses have signs fixed to the exterior of the premises, whilst others have portable signs that sit near the entrance or on the roadside. It cannot be said that every person who agrees to allow part of their residential premises to be used for business purposes implicitly gives consent for a sign to be fixed to the external part of the premises. If this is what is agreed, then it needs to be clearly stated in the tenancy agreement.
No written communication from the landlord permitting the tenant to fix a sign to the outside of the premises was submitted. The tenant claims the landlord gave their verbal consent for this to occur. No supporting evidence was submitted of this and the landlord denies it was the case. Both parties submitted copies of emails exchanged between each other on 11 and 12 May 2026. The email dated 11 May 2026 was sent by the landlord and outlines important aspects of the tenancy the parties have agreed upon. The tenant responded to the landlord’s email on 12 May 2026 stating: ...I am pleased to confirm that I am in full agreement with all of the arrangements you have summarised in your email...
Neither email refers to signage at all. In the absence of any supporting evidence, I am not convinced that the landlord gave their oral consent for the tenant to fix a sign to the outside of the premises. In any case, section 42(1)(b) RTA is clear that written consent is required.
The tenant’s claim that they would not have signed the tenancy agreement if they knew the Body Corporate operational rules prohibited them from fixing a sign to the outside of the unit does not account for the fact that, regardless of what the rules say, the tenancy agreement does not permit this, and the landlord did not give their prior written consent. In other words, the tenant would have suffered the same loss, even if the rules permitted a sign to be fixed to the outside of the unit.
There are also other intervening factors that contributed to the tenant’s loss. First is the fact that the tenant was acting as the as the landlord’s property manager up to 1 June 2026. The tenant claims they stopped acting as the property manager on 25 May 2026 however, the “Special Conditions” clause of the tenancy agreement clearly states that the tenant will cease acting as the landlord’s property agent on 1 June 2026. As the landlord’s property manager, the tenant had a duty of care to ensure that they provided the landlord with appropriate advice to ensure compliance with the RTA. This includes the need to provide a statement of the Body Corporate operational rules. The tenant did not provide this advice. Their negligence contributed to the landlord’s breach and consequently, the tenant’s own decision to sign the tenancy agreement and incur associated costs.
The second intervening factor is the failure by the tenant to undertake their own due diligence. This was not a typical residential tenancy. It was a tenancy for residential and commercial purposes. In respect of the commercial aspect, the tenant had a duty to undertake their own due diligence to ensure they were able to run their business from the premises in the way in which they wanted. This includes, investigating whether there was any impediment that prohibited them from fixing a sign to the outside of the premises. The tenant did not do this. They did not seek expert advice, including legal advice, or request a copy of the Body Corporate operational rules. The landlord is not responsible for financial loss arising from the tenant’s failure to undertake appropriate due diligence.
For all of these reasons, I am not convinced there is a causal link between the landlord’s breach and costs incurred by the tenant.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is dismissed.

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

The law

The landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. 3
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 4 It does not mean commercially clean, 5 spotless 6 or to a hotel or motel standard. 7 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 8 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the premises were not provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness, because the kitchen was not clean, the cupboards were dirty, the upstairs toilet was not clean, the garage was not clean and the backyard was not tidy. The tenant did not submit any photographs. They submitted a copy of a text message sent to the cleaner on 24 May 2026, listing the areas that required further cleaning. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1)(a). 4 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 6 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 8 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].
The landlord claims the premises were provided in a very reasonable state of cleanliness. They submitted photographs of the premises taken on 25 May 2026. Analysis
The photographs of the premises taken at the beginning of the tenancy are the best evidence of its condition. These show the premises to be in a very reasonable state of cleanliness. No rubbish is present. The floors have been vacuumed and mopped. The bench surfaces have been wiped down. The kitchen, bathroom and toilet are all very clean. For these reasons, I find the landlord provided the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the premises comply with the healthy homes standards?

The law

Section 45(1)(bb) RTA requires a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards (HHS). The HHS are found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
Regulation 23 relates to ventilation and states: 23Mechanical ventilation for kitchens and bathrooms (1)Each kitchen and bathroom in the premises must have installed in it – (a)an extractor fan; or (b)qualifying ventilation. (2)For a kitchen that has an extractor fan, - (a)the fan and all exhaust ducting must have a diameter of at least 150mm; or (b)the fan and all exhaust ducting must have an exhaust capacity of at least 50 l/s.
“Extractor fan” is defined in regulation 3 as meaning “an extractor fan that vents extracted air to the outdoors.”
“Qualifying ventilation” is also defined in regulation 3 as meaning: (a)Mechanical ventilation that – (i)Is designed to vent extracted air continuously from residential premises to the outdoors; and (ii)For a kitchen or bathroom, extracts the air directly from the room; and (iii)Was installed in premises or a tenancy building that first received building consent on or after 1 November 2019; and (iv)Was part of the original building consent for the premises or tenancy building; and (v)Continues to meet the requirements of the building consent; or (b)Mechanical ventilation that – (i)Is designed to vent extracted air continuously from residential premises to the outdoors; and (ii)For a kitchen or bathroom, extracts the air directly from the room; and (iii)Is designed to provide ventilation for multiple rooms; and (iv)For a kitchen, has an exhaust capacity of at least 12 l/s; and (v)For a bathroom, has an exhaust capacity of at least 10 l/s.
Regulation 24 defines when a kitchen is exempt from needing to comply with the ventilation requirements. It states: 24Exemption from mechanical ventilation standard if extractor fan not reasonably practicable to install (1)A kitchen or bathroom need not comply with regulation 23 if all of the following apply: (a)at the commencement of the tenancy, - (i)the room does not have an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation: (ii)it is not reasonably practicable to install an extractor fan so as to comply with the requirements of regulation 23(2) and (3): (b)when the room was built or converted into a kitchen or bathroom, not having an extractor fan was lawful: (c)if not having an extractor fan was lawful only because the room met alternative ventilation requirements, at the commencement of the tenancy the room still meets those requirements.
Regulation 4 defines the meaning of “not reasonably practicable to install.” It states: 4Meaning of not reasonably practicable to install It is not reasonably practicable to install something at any premises or tenancy building if, because of the way the premises or tenancy building is designed or built, - (a)A professional installer cannot access the relevant area of the premises or tenancy building to install the thing without – (i)Carrying out substantial building work; or (ii)Causing substantial damage to the premises or tenancy building; or (b)A professional installer cannot install the thing without creating greater risks to the health or safety of any person than are normally acceptable when something of that kind is being installed by a professional installer; or (c)It is otherwise not reasonably practicable for a professional installer to install the thing. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the premises do not comply with the HHS because the rangehood in the kitchen does not vent extracted air to the outdoors. The tenant claims that the parties agreed that the tenant would be responsible for organising a healthy homes assessment report to be completed in their role as a property manager however, they ceased working in this capacity on 25 May 2026. Henceforth, the tenant claims it was the landlord’s responsibility to have the premises assessed and ensure compliance with the HHS.
The tenant claims they instructed Prime Services to complete an assessment. The tenant did not submit an assessment report from Prime Services, but claims the assessor verbally told them that the premises do not comply because the rangehood does not vent to the outside. The tenant submitted copies of text messages between themselves, and a person called “Ganesh”, whom they claim works at Prime Services. The tenant also submitted copies of text messages between Ganesh and the landlord. The tenant claims these text messages support their claim regarding the rangehood.
The landlord accepts that the rangehood does not vent to the outdoors. They claim the Body Corporate operational rules do not permit them to install an exhaust system that vents to the outdoors. The landlord claims they have requested confirmation of this from the Body Corporate but have not received it to date. The landlord claims the rangehood has a charcoal filter, which is specifically designed for extractor fans that vent back into the kitchen instead of outdoors. Analysis
Regulation 23(1) of the HHS requires the kitchen to have an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation. An extractor fan and qualifying ventilation must, among other things, vent extracted air to the outside. The landlord accepts the rangehood in the kitchen does not do this. Therefore, I find the kitchen did not comply with the ventilation requirements of the HHS at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord did not submit sufficient evidence to convince me, on the balance of probabilities, that the kitchen is exempt from needing to comply with the HHS. A copy of the Body Corporate operational rules was provided. There is no express rule that would appear to prohibit the landlord form installing a rangehood that vents to the outside or an extractor fan in a different part of the kitchen. It is not uncommon for extractor fans to be installed in windows in kitchens of premises that are a unit title.
For all of these reasons, I find the premises did not comply with the ventilation requirements of the HHS at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach. I decline to order compensation for the following reasons: a. The tenancy was short and lasted from 25 May 2026 to 23 June 2026. The tenant did not live in the premises during this time and therefore, did not suffer any lack of amenity. b. The photographs of the premises do not show any moisture, mould or other indicator that would suggest the premises pose a health risk. On the contrary, the premises appear very modern, clean and appealing in the photographs. c. The tenant was acting as the landlord’s property manager up to 1 June 2026. The “Special Conditions” clause of the tenancy agreement states that the tenant is to arrange a healthy homes report. These unusual circumstances understandably led the landlord to believe that the tenant, in their capacity as the property manager, was taking care of the HHS aspect of the tenancy.
For these reasons, I do not find the substantial merits and justice of the case warrant an order for compensation. Should the landlord pay the tenant compensation for failing to take an actual water meter reading at the beginning of the tenancy?
The tenant takes issue with the fact that the landlord did not complete an actual water meter reading at the beginning of the tenancy.
The RTA does not impose an obligation on landlords to complete an actual water meter reading at the beginning of the tenancy. Section 39(3) RTA states that a tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises and use of the facilities. This includes water. 9 Where a landlord fails to undertake an actual water meter reading at the beginning of the tenancy, there may be issues in determining what proportion of subsequent water rates invoices the tenant is liable to pay. This is because, in the absence of an actual water meter reading, it is difficult to prove what proportion of water consumed is exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises and use of the facilities. In this case, however, only one water rates invoice was issued during the tenancy, which the landlord paid in full.
The tenant has not suffered any financial loss as a result of the landlord not undertaking an actual water meter reading at the beginning of the tenancy. For this reason, the tenant’s claim for compensation is dismissed. Should the landlord pay the tenant compensation for failing to advise the date for rubbish collection?
The tenant claims the landlord did not advise them of the date for rubbish collection, which meant they had to make enquiries with the neighbours.
Neither the tenancy agreement, nor RTA, imposes an obligation on the landlord to advise the tenant of the date for rubbish collection. For this reason, this claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

The law

Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which they are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
A landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 39(3). circumstances. As to what is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy it. 10
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach. 11 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 12
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 13 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the landlord failed to cover two, relatively large sized dog doors in the garage. The first dog door is in an internal door in the garage, which provided access to the rest of the house. The second dog door is in a glass door at the rear of the garage. The tenant claims the presence of the dog doors was a security concern for them and any files they might keep in the garage as part of their business. The tenant was concerned that people living upstairs might be able to access the garage through the internal dog door. Similarly, the tenant was concerned that strangers might be able to access the garage through the dog door in the rear glass door.
The tenant claims they asked the landlord to board up the dog door in the internal door and replace the glass pane in the rear door. The tenant claims the landlord did not do this.
The landlord claims the tenant was not concerned about the dog doors for security reasons, but because they believed the dog doors did not suit the aesthetics of the garage.
The landlord claims the rear glass door has double-glazing and the dog door is secure. The landlord claims they have lived at the premises for 3 years and never experienced a break in. 10 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 11 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 12 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 13 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. Analysis
The first issue I must determine is whether the dog doors were in a state of disrepair. I find they were not. This is because no evidence was given about the dog doors not working properly. The evidence given was about how the tenant perceived the dog doors to be a security risk for their business or did not consider them to be visually appealing. It is very common for residential premises to have dog or cat doors. Pet doors do not pose an unreasonable security risk. A landlord is not required to repair or replace a pet door, unless something is wrong with it. I am not convinced there was anything wrong with the dog doors in this case.
I am also not convinced, on the balance of probabilities, that there was any agreement that the landlord would remove the dog doors. No written evidence was submitted to support this. The tenancy agreement does not state this. The emails between the parties dated 11 and 12 May 2026 include all of the important terms of the agreement prior to signing. The dog doors are not mentioned.
For all of these reasons, I find the landlord did not have a duty to remove or replace the dog doors.
This claim is dismissed. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS Should the tenant reimburse the landlord $2,200.00 for the purchase and installation of a heat pump in the garage? Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims there was no need to install a heat pump in the garage however, the landlord agreed to cover the costs to do this as part of the agreement between the parties. The landlord claims this was because they were under the impression that the tenancy would be long-term, not one month. The landlord claims that they were not provided with a quote by the tenant or given an opportunity to choose between suppliers. The landlord claims the tenant unilaterally chose a heat pump and organised for its installation without consultation. The landlord has paid the invoice, but claims the cost of $2,200.00 is too high.
The tenant claims that the cost of $2,200.00 to purchase and install the heat pump is reasonable. The tenant claims the heat pump is a 3.5kw Panasonic heat pump. Analysis
The “Special Conditions” clause of the tenancy agreement states: Landlord funding the installation of a heat pump
The email sent by the landlord on 11 May 2026 and agreed to by the tenant on 12 May 2026 states: Garage heat pump installation – Arif to arrange and invoice to Jesh
From this evidence, I find that the parties agreed that the tenant would organise for the purchase and installation of a heat pump in the garage and the landlord would cover the cost. There is no mention of the need for the tenant to consult with the landlord first or seek their prior approval. I agree with the tenant’s submission that $2,200.00 is reasonable. The Tribunal sees numerous cases involving heat pumps. $2,200.00 does not stand out to me as being unusually high for the purchase and installation of a 3.5kw Panasonic heat pump.
For all of these reasons, this claim is dismissed. Should the tenancy agreement be varied from a periodic tenancy to a fixed-term tenancy of 12 months? The law
Section 78 RTA defines the types of orders the Tribunal may make. Section 78(1)(g) states: Where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement between the parties has been induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake, or that any writing purporting to express the agreement between the parties does not accord with their true agreement, an order varying, or setting aside, the agreement or the writing (either wholly or in part). Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims the parties agreed that the tenancy would be a long-term tenancy, not a periodic tenancy. The landlord claims they never would have spent money on things like a heat pump in the garage if the tenancy was going to be short. The landlord accepts that they drafted the tenancy agreement and that it states the tenancy is periodic. The landlord claims this is a mistake and the parties actually agreed to a long-term tenancy.
The tenant denies there was ever any agreement or representation that the tenancy would be long-term. Analysis
The starting point is that the tenancy agreement is a complete and final record of the parties’ agreement. Insufficient evidence was submitted to convince me, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenancy agreement does not accord with the parties’ true intentions and should be varied.
The emails sent by the parties on 11 and 12 May 2026 discuss the terms of the proposed agreement prior to signing. No mention is made about the length of the tenancy. The landlord’s email relevantly states: Tenancy Details • You will take over the property as a tenant, using it to run your business and for boarder income. • Rent will be $700 per week, commencing Monday, 25 May 2026. • You (or your business entity) will be the named party on the tenancy agreement. • The rent will be fixed for one year and reviewed annually. • We discussed a potential increased to $730 per week from the second year, subject to market conditions, with future reviews to follow accordingly.
The landlord’s reference to the rent being fixed for one year is simply a restatement of section 24(1)(d) RTA, which states that the rent may not be increased within the first 12 months of the tenancy. I do not find that this amounts to an agreement that the tenancy itself will endure for one year. Similarly, the fact that the potential rent for the second year of the tenancy is discussed does not amount to an agreement or assurance that the tenancy will continue for at least one year. No clear evidence of any agreement between the parties that the tenancy would be fixed for one year was submitted. In the absence of this kind of evidence, I am not convinced that the fact that the tenancy agreement states the tenancy is periodic is a mistake.
For these reasons, I decline to vary the terms of the tenancy agreement to a fixed- term tenancy. Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred to the premises during the tenancy? The law
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 14 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims a white wardrobe in the garage was removed by the tenant without the landlord’s permission on 23 May 2026. The landlord claims the wardrobe was fixed to the garage with screws. The landlord claims the tenant did not like the wardrobe, because it did not fit with the décor they intended for the garage space. The landlord claims they incurred costs in organising for the removal of the wardrobe.
The tenant claims the wardrobe was fixed to the garage with one screw. The tenant claims it needed to be removed to install acoustic panels. The tenant claims they had the landlord’s verbal permission to remove the wardrobe. Analysis
The tenancy began on 25 May 2026. The alleged damage occurred on 23 May 2026, before the tenancy began.
The Tribunal only has jurisdiction to determine disputes that relate to a tenancy to which the RTA applies. 15 The RTA applies once a tenancy begins, not beforehand. This means the Tribunal can only consider breaches of tenant obligations under the RTA that occur during a tenancy. Actions that occur before the tenancy began are outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Because the damage did not occur during the tenancy, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this claim. For this reason, it is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful with their application. Therefore, I do not order either party to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant’s written application requests name suppression. Because the tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful with their application, their request for name suppression is declined. 16 14 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 15 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 77(1). 16 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 95A(1).
The landlord’s written application does not request name suppression. For this reason, and because the landlord has also not been wholly or substantially successful with their application, I decline to order suppression of the landlord’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5518590 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 17, 2 Onehunga Harbour Road, Onehunga,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5518590 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 17, 2 Onehunga Harbour Road, Onehunga,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

Did the premises comply with the healthy homes standards?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

Did the premises comply with the healthy homes standards?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.