What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5075168?

The tribunal order states: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited acting as agent for L H

How much money was awarded in case 5075168?

Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: delayed response on ro…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to attend to l…: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: heating deficiency for…: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; October 2022: $1,450.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5075168?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5075168?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11888341-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5075168?

The tribunal order states: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited acting as agent for L H

How much money was awarded in case 5075168?

Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: delayed response on ro…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to attend to l…: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: heating deficiency for…: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; October 2022: $1,450.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5075168?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5075168?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11888341-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

45F Arana Drive, Karaka, RD 2, Papakura 2578 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5075168 — Leaks

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5075168 — net $5,550.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
October 2022	$1,450.00		October 2022
Compensation: failure to attend to leaks by the front door		$2,000.00	failure to attend to leaks by the front door
Compensation: delayed response on rodent issue		$500.00	delayed response on rodent issue
Compensation: non repair of faulty lounge TV		$400.00	non repair of faulty lounge TV
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment re extended		$500.00	breach of quiet enjoyment re extended
Exemplary damages: non compliance of HHS re heating		$2,000.00	non compliance of HHS re heating
Compensation: heating deficiency for 14 months		$1,200.00	heating deficiency for 14 months
Compensation: non repair of broken garage door after 20		$400.00	non repair of broken garage door after 20
Total award	$1,450.00	$7,000.00
Net award		$5,550.00
Bond		$1,450.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$5,550.00

Both parties attended the hearings on 16 May 2025 and 23 May 2025.

I heard and addressed the landlord’s claims and part heard the tenant’s counterclaims on 16 May 2025. The tenant’s counterclaims were fully heard and addressed on 23 May 2025.

After the 16 May hearing, I made an order for the bond of $1,450.00 to remain with the bond centre and the balance of the bond of $7,550.00 to be returned to the tenant based on these findings in favour of the landlord for reimbursement of carpet cleaning costs of $450.00, cleaning costs of $250.00 and door repair costs of $750.00:

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I find on the evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

Only the amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

A door was damaged by the tenant’s dog during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Given my above findings, the maximum amount that the landlord could have received from the bond is $1,450.00. Consequently, I consider it appropriate that the balance of the bond of $7,550.00 is returned to the tenant forthwith as the bond is the tenant’s money.

I am not releasing the $1,450.00 to the landlord presently because the tenant’s counterclaims, if successful and proved, could well set-off the landlord’s successful claims in their entirely.

Therefore, the balance of the bond of $1,450.00 should remain at the bond centre pending full disposal of the tenant’s counterclaims.

Having heard from both parties on the tenant’s counterclaims, and on careful consideration of the parties’ detailed documentation filed in support of and in defence against those counterclaims, I now summarise my findings on the tenant’s claims as follows. Has the landlord maintained the premises adequately and attended to repairs within a reasonable time?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45, a landlord must: a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and c) comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

A tenant has a corresponding duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs (see section 40(1)(d) RTA).

The landlord’s obligation is therefore to repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair, either from observing the property or notice from the tenant: “... the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be.” (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010; see also Merwald Real Estate v Lanauze DC Auckland, MA151-89, 2 May 1989).

Compensation ought to be awarded for breach of the landlord’s obligations and where the other party has suffered a loss or inconvenience because of that breach.

It goes without saying that only if the landlord is found to in breach of their obligations under section 45 (as set out above) and the tenant has carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify and allow maintenance to be attended to, would an award of compensation be considered and made. Where the tenant has not carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify or not allow maintenance to be attended to, no award of compensation will be made.

I am satisfied that the tenant has notified the landlord of these items requiring attention, but the repairs and works had not been carried out or attended to within a reasonable time, for which I award the tenant compensation as follows: a) Compensation of $2,000.00 for failure to attend to leaks by the front door, corner of the kitchen, guttering above back door and wooden windows; b) Compensation of $500.00 for the landlord’s delayed response on the issue of rodents infestation at the premises; c) Compensation of $400.00 on the landlord’s non repair of faulty lounge TV; d) Compensation of $1,200.00 on the loss of amenities suffered by the tenant on the lack of adequate heating in the premises for 14 months; and e) Compensation of $400.00 on the non repair of broken garage door after 20 October 2022.

The landlord failed to comply with Healthy Homes heating standards. The landlord is obliged under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.

This tenancy started on 31 January 2022. The rental must comply within 90 days of that date.

The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.

The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/

The landlord’s HHS report dated 20 March 2023 confirm that the downstairs area lacked the required 10kW of heating capacity to comply with the HHS heating standards.

I consider that the landlord has breached the HHS and committed an unlawful act in the circumstances.

Having committed the unlawful act under the HHS, I award exemplary damages of $2,000.00 against the landlord having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest that mandatory HHS heating standards must be met. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Has the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises?

The tenant claims the landlord has breached their peace, comfort and quiet enjoyment of their use of the premises.

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

I find that the landlord has breached or permitted contractors to breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment in the manner it had carried out extended tree trimming works at the premises. I award the tenant general damages of $500.00 for the tenant’s loss of quiet enjoyment.

However, I do not consider that the landlord has breached the obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment; I do not find that they have committed an unlawful act intentionally under section 38 RTA.

Only the amounts ordered are proved.

Apart from the above issues, I consider that the landlord has duly responded to the remaining complaints by the tenant adequately and attended to the repairs within a reasonable time.

Having regard to the relative successes of both parties’ claims and counterclaims, the remainder of the bond held by the bond centre is to be refunded to the tenant forthwith.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5075168 — net $5,550.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
October 2022	$1,450.00		October 2022
Compensation: failure to attend to leaks by the front door		$2,000.00	failure to attend to leaks by the front door
Compensation: delayed response on rodent issue		$500.00	delayed response on rodent issue
Compensation: non repair of faulty lounge TV		$400.00	non repair of faulty lounge TV
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment re extended		$500.00	breach of quiet enjoyment re extended
Exemplary damages: non compliance of HHS re heating		$2,000.00	non compliance of HHS re heating
Compensation: heating deficiency for 14 months		$1,200.00	heating deficiency for 14 months
Compensation: non repair of broken garage door after 20		$400.00	non repair of broken garage door after 20
Total award	$1,450.00	$7,000.00
Net award		$5,550.00
Bond		$1,450.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$5,550.00