What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5550468 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s claim regarding water usage is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5550468?

Property Damage: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $29.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $920.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5550468?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5550468?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14178480-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5550468 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s claim regarding water usage is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5550468?

Property Damage: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $29.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $920.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5550468?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5550468?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14178480-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

50 Halsey Drive, Lynfield, Auckland 1042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5550468 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5550468 — net $1,669.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
General damages	$920.00	General damages
Exemplary damages	$720.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$29.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,669.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,669.00

The tenant’s claim regarding water usage is dismissed.

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 5.00 pm on Friday 25 September 2026: a. Fit a lock that is operated by a removable key to the sliding, internal access door from the garage to the house, b. Remove the remaining rubbish that was left at the premises prior to 4 July 2026, c. Service the waste-disposal and provide a plug, d. Clean away mould and re-attach the carpet to the floor outside the upstairs main toilet, e. Repair the middle burner on the stove so it is operational, and f. Repair or replace the second garage remote control.

As an alternative to compliance with Order 1, the landlord must pay the tenant $2,000.00 immediately.

If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 2 or 3 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $2,000.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.

Realzea Limited As Agent For Shifa Saif Parkar Bhaskar Singh must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $1,669.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Mr Negi. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] was supported by her husband [The tenant/s] tenant/s].

Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “RTA”), the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.

Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) RTA.

If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) RTA.

If the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order, a work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) RTA.

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

The tenant claims the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

The tenant has raised a long list of maintenance issues that beset the premises at the start of the one-year fixed-term tenancy which began on 4 July 2026. Most of the issues have since been resolved; a few remain outstanding.

Below is a list of the issues for the above claim. The date next to the issues is the date on which the issue was resolved. a. Premises not clean at start of tenancy, (rust in kitchen drawers, rubbish left behind, waste disposal smelly, oven not cleaning, grass clippings not raked) b. No fibre box, (7 July 2026), c. Cold tap not working in the laundry, (23 July 2026), d. Leak in the upstairs toilet, (29 July 2026), e. Front door lock very difficult to operate, (29 July 2026), f. Oven not usable because turning on the oven switch also activated the hob lighters, (29 July 2026), g. Recessed kitchen light half hanging from the ceiling, (29 July 2026), h. Top of the cistern in the downstairs toilet missing, (29 July 2026), i. No plug for the kitchen sink, (29 July 2026), j. Braided steel inlet to toilet cistern kinked (30 July 2026), k. Kitchen drawers rusty, (24 August and 29 August 2026), l. Outside light not working (24 August 2026), m. Flush in master bedroom bathroom faulty (3 September 2026), n. Bathroom “heating” switch not connected, o. Internal access garage door not able to be latched or locked, (outstanding), p. Middle burner on stove not working (outstanding), q. Rubbish and belongings left behind by owner, (partially outstanding), r. Waste disposal had a sponge in it and smells foul, (outstanding), s. Mould under carpet outside bathroom (outstanding), t. One garage remote not working, (outstanding).

The majority of the issues are not at all, or not particularly serious. Some claims were not proved to my satisfaction. For example: a. It was not proved that the bathroom heating switch was not connected. It appears that has not recently been any heating in the bathroom. b. Other than specific issues regarding the condition of the premises, I do not find that the premises generally were not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy.

However, some of the issues are moderately serious, such as the plumbing leak, the laundry tap not working, the oven not working, not all of the hobs working, the front door being difficult to lock and the internal access door not having a latch or a lock.

It is inevitable there will be teething problems at the start of a tenancy. Usually parties are able to work through teething problems amicably.

In this case the parties have not managed to resolve the issues on their own in a reasonable timeframe. This has partly been because of the large number of issues, which the landlord explained was partially due to the property having been vacant for several months leading up to the start of this tenancy.

It has also been partly due to the landlord trying to “work with” the tenant to find a suitable time to send a maintenance person, rather than rely on their right of access to maintain a premises. The landlord explained that in most cases, as soon as a problem was raised by the tenant, the landlord attempted to solve the problem.

However, communication was difficult and the time to remedy the problems became unreasonably long.

The landlord said that when the tenant initially complained about the problems, the landlord asked the tenant when a suitable time would be to send a maintenance person. The tenant responded that they got home “after 3.30pm”. The landlord said this did not leave enough time to address all of the issues. The tenant said they were home at the weekends. The landlord said weekends were not ideal as they incurred extra charges. The tenant asked the landlord when would suit the landlord. The landlord responded 29 July 2026.

The initial date offered by the landlord was 23 July 2026. This is 19 days after the tenancy began. 29 July 2026 was the date on which most of the first repairs were undertaken. This was 25 days after the start of the tenancy.

Under the RTA section 48(2)(d), a landlord has a right of entry for the purpose of carrying out necessary repairs or maintenance of the premises, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry.

Under RTA section 48(4) it is an unlawful act for a tenant, without reasonable excuse, to fail to allow the landlord to enter upon the premises in any circumstances in which the landlord is entitled to enter under subsections (2).

Communication difficulties are not a defence to a breach of failing to provide and maintain a premises in a reasonable state of repair. A landlord has an obligation under the RTA section 45 to maintain a premises. To fail to do so is an unlawful act. Failing to carry out maintenance and claiming it was because of the tenant’s poor communication does not excuse the breach. A landlord has a statutory obligation to maintain premises, and a statutory power that allows them to enter a premises for this purpose.

I consider two weeks, or 14 days is a reasonable period of time for a landlord to remedy any initial problems with premises at the start of a tenancy.

Most of issues were remediated by 29 July 2026. Some were remediated in August and September. Some were still outstanding on the day of the hearing, more than nine weeks after the start of the tenancy.

In failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, I determine the landlord has breached section 45(1A) of the RTA. This is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See schedule 1A of the RTA.

The tenant has asked for a rent reduction from the start of the tenancy and exemplary damages as remedies.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.

As stated above, I consider it reasonable to allow a landlord two weeks to address initial problems at the start of a tenancy.

Since then, seven weeks have elapsed. I determine it is reasonable for the landlord to refund the tenant an amount equal to one week’s full rent as general damages, in compensation for the loss of amenity caused by all of the ongoing maintenance issues.

I also consider that exemplary damages are appropriate in this case. Having considered the above factors, including the facts that this is the start of a tenancy, the period it covers has been short, the annoyance factor for the tenants has been high, matters of security are included, the landlord has attempted to act in a timely manner, and the landlord has failed to exercise their right of entry provided in the RTA, I consider a relatively low award is appropriate in this case.

This claim and the amounts ordered are proved. Dispute over Watercare bill

As already stated the tenancy began on 4 July 2026. The first Watercare bill the tenants received was dated 28 July 2026. This records an actual metre reading on 24 June 2026 as 6500. An estimate was then made for 28 July 2026 which was also 6500.

The second Watercare bill the tenants received was dated 27 August 2026. This records the estimate for the reading of 28 July 2026 as 6500 and then an actual reading of 6532 for 26 August 2026.

The tenant says that because there was no actual reading taken at the beginning of the tenancy, there is no way to be certain that the metre did not already exceed 6500 on 4 July 2026, which would mean they are being charged for water that they did not use.

The landlord says the property was empty from before 24 June 2026 until the tenant moved in on 4 July 2026. The landlord produced a letter from Watercare Services Limited dated 26 June 2026 which queries the reason for zero water usage at their most recent reading.

I accept the tenant’s query that it is possible water was used before they moved in. However, the landlord says this did not happen. I accept this information from the landlord. Or to put it another way, I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that water had been used between 24 June 2026 and 4 July 2026, particularly given that Watercare noted that none had been used from April 2026 until 24 June 2026. The onus is on the tenant to prove their claim. I determine they have not discharged this burden.

Because [The tenant/s] tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5550468 — net $1,669.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
General damages	$920.00	General damages
Exemplary damages	$720.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$29.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,669.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,669.00