What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5114928?

The tribunal order states: Rent My Room Limited must pay Candice Shontelle Witehira $300.00

How much money was awarded in case 5114928?

Compensation: Broken Window: $300.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5114928?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5114928?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11730758-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5114928?

The tribunal order states: Rent My Room Limited must pay Candice Shontelle Witehira $300.00

How much money was awarded in case 5114928?

Compensation: Broken Window: $300.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5114928?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5114928?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11730758-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 1, 15 Warborough Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5114928 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5114928 — net $300.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: broken window	$300.00	broken window
Net award	$300.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$300.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5114928 — net $300.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: broken window	$300.00	broken window
Net award	$300.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$300.00

Order

Rent My Room Limited must pay Candice Shontelle Witehira $300.00 immediately, being compensation for failure to repair the broken window in a reasonable timeframe.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 17 April 2025.
The tenant was a boarder in the boarding house from 16 July 2024 until 15 January 2025. She was originally in Room 4 but moved to Room 1 on 23 September 2024, where she remained until the end of the tenancy.
Rent My Room Limited is also a tenant of the owner of the premises.
Candice Shontelle Witehira claims that the landlord breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Specifically, the tenant claimed: a. The landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; b. The landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required timeframe; c. The landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; d. The premises suffered from pest infestation; e. The premises failed to meet the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”); f. The landlord failed to provide a safe living environment and breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises; and g. The termination notice was issued in retaliation. Premises at the beginning of the tenancy
Under section 66H(2)(b) of the RTA, the landlord must ensure that the room is in a reasonable state of cleanliness when a tenant first takes occupation of a boarding room.
The tenant stated that the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition but did not have any photographs from the beginning of the tenancy to support this claim.
The tenant claimed she had cleaned the premises herself. However, there were no emails or any other evidence to support this to the required standard.
Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Failure to lodge the bond
The tenant paid $720.00 as bond when the tenancy began. She was initially in Room 4.
The bond was lodged with the Bond Centre but remained listed under “Room 4” even after she moved to Room 1, as the Bond Centre was no longer processing transfers between rooms.
Instead of refunding the $720.00 bond and re-lodging an $840.00 bond, the existing $720.00 remained lodged, and the tenant paid an additional $120.00 towards her bond on 2 October 2024.
At the tenant’s request, the landlord arranged for the bond to be refunded to the landlord so the full $840.00 could be lodged with the Bond Centre. However, the tenant moved out two days later, on 15 January 2025.
When the bond was refunded, the tenant was in rent arrears, and the refunded bond was used to offset these arrears.
After offsetting, the final outstanding rent arrears amounted to $300.95, which the tenant accepted.
Ordinarily, the landlord must lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after payment is received. Failure to do so is an unlawful act, for which a maximum of $1,500.00 in exemplary damages may be awarded.
In this case, I see no public interest in awarding exemplary damages, given that the original bond had been lodged.
However, the landlord should still have lodged the additional $120.00 with the Bond Centre so that the entire bond was held there. I make note of this for the record, and it should serve as a warning for the landlord.
I make no orders for this claim. Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
On 19 November 2024, the tenant discovered that the bottom part of her window had fallen out and emailed the landlord requesting urgent repairs.
The landlord emailed the owner of the premises on 20 November 2024 to notify them of the window issue.
From 20 November 2024, the landlord communicated with the owner until 28 November 2024, when a glazier attended and replaced the glass.
On 27 November 2024, the landlord updated the tenant by email, advising that they had notified the owner and were scheduling a repair.
The issue is whether the landlord ensured that the premises were in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises, and whether they complied with building, health, and safety requirements, including sufficient locks or devices to ensure reasonable security (see section 66I of the RTA).
Breach of this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded (see Schedule 1A of the RTA).
The landlord relied on the fact that they had passed on responsibility for the window repair to the owner of the premises, who is their landlord.
I find that the tenant being without a secure window for nine days was unreasonable. Rent My Room Limited should have arranged for their own glazier to replace the glass earlier.
I find that $300.00 in compensation is appropriate for the tenant’s loss of enjoyment of the room due to the unreasonable delay. This amount acknowledges the weekly rent of $280.00 paid by the tenant.
I do not award exemplary damages, given the amount of compensation ordered.
The tenant also raised concerns about grime on the outdoor steps and tree branches covering half of the steps.
The tenant also emailed the landlord requesting a new oven and washing machine, as the existing ones were not working and the oven had been damaged by another tenant.
Although the tenant has proven that she has raised issues about these, the tenant has not proven that the landlord has failed to attend to them in reasonable timeframe.
I make no awards for these. Pest infestation
On 2 December 2024, the tenant emailed the landlord reporting an infestation of termites in her room. The following day, the tenant sent the landlord a video and an email regarding the bug infestation. The tenant stated that it was an infestation and that bug spray would not be sufficient to eliminate it.
The same video was shown at the hearing, which showed ants and flying insects in the room.
The landlord asked the tenant to use bug spray, requested more information about the infestation, and also sought information from other tenants.
At the hearing, the tenant said she had used bug spray, but it had not worked. However, it does not seem that the tenant had evidence that she had communicated this fact to the landlord at the time.
On 4 December 2024, the landlord followed up with the tenant and asked whether she could confirm that she had used the bug spray. The tenant did not respond to confirm this.
On 5 December 2024, the landlord emailed the tenant advising that the house cleaner would use bug spray during their next visit. The cleaners attended on the weekend of either 7 or 8 December 2024.
On 9 December 2024, the tenant emailed the landlord again, noting that the insects came out when it was particularly hot.
I do not find that the landlord failed to address the pest infestation issue. The tenant was asked to use bug spray, and the landlord followed up on this request. The landlord also arranged for the cleaners to apply bug spray. There was no evidence provided to show that the bug spray was ineffective.
The video was not obvious in showing that it was termites or a pest infestation.
This claim is dismissed. The premises failed to meet the HHS
The tenant claimed that the premises breached HHS.
The tenant also claimed that generally, the window frames were rotten and would not meet the HHS standards.
To rebut this, the landlord provided an HHS assessment report that had marked the premises as a “pass”. However, that report was from 10 November 2020.
As there are no regulations currently that require the premises to be assessed for HHS on an annual basis, there is nothing to rebut that the premises met the HHS.
The tenant said that there was hole in the ceiling that was not repaired in a timely manner but the landlord said that they had to wait until it rained so that it could be fixed.
The Tribunal could have been guided by a more up-to-date HHS report provided by either party. A recent HHS report would have been greatly helpful. However, as there was nothing other than the landlord’s HHS report that has assessed the premises as passing the HHS requirements, this claim is dismissed. The landlord failed to provide a safe living environment and breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises
Every tenant of a boarding house is entitled to the quiet enjoyment of the premises, without interruption by another tenant of the boarding house. See section 66G(1) RTA.
The landlord must not permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant. Contravention of this in circumstances that amount to harassment of a tenant is an unlawful act.
The tenant said that there was another tenant who smoked methamphetamine and was hanging around the tenant’s door at 2 am in the morning. Until she rang the Police, nothing had been done. That other tenant had smashed the oven, smashed one of the other tenant’s table.
The tenant provided a screenshot of the Police complaint for criminal harassment and photos of a smashed glass table.
The landlord said that there had been 3 tenants that had been kicked out as a result of the tenant’s complaints previously. This complaint also resulted in this 4th tenant having been kicked out after getting 3 warnings in the same week. The Police were involved with the final warning.
The landlord said that they had to go through the process of natural justice to give the other tenant a chance to respond to the complaint. The landlord said that the other tenant could not be evicted on a single complaint.
The tenant also said that the landlord had been coming around the boarding house too frequently. The tenant said that she had to shut her curtains. The landlord also peered inside her brother’s truck that had been parked.
The landlord said that he was there to do work at the boarding house. He had seen a car that he did not recognise and he looked into it and was told by one of the others from the address that it was the tenant’s brothers.
Both parties acknowledged that no notice was required for the landlord to be at the premises.
Having heard from both parties, I do not find that the tenant has proven the landlord has failed in their duty to ensure the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises free from interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant.
I do not find that the tenant has proven the claims for compensation or exemplary damages or emotional distress.
I dismiss the claims. The termination notice was given in retaliation
The landlord terminated the tenancy by giving a 28-day written notice.
No reason needs to be given for a 28-day termination notice. However, the termination notice noted some complaints raised by other tenants in the boarding house.
The tenant claimed the notice was retaliatory. The tenant provided references from the other tenants from the boarding house that seemed to rebut the landlord’s reason given for the termination.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) RTA.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord denied that the termination notice was given in retaliation. The landlord said that if the termination was going to be retaliatory, he would have done it months before.
I do not find that the tenant has proven that the termination notice was given in retaliation. This claim is dismissed. Filing fee reimbursement and name suppression
As I do not find that the tenant has wholly or substantially succeeded with the application, I do not order for any reimbursement of the filing fee.
As I do not find that the tenant has succeed with the application, I do not grant any name suppression for her as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5114928 — Tenancy dispute at Room 1, 15 Warborough Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5114928 — Tenancy dispute at Room 1, 15 Warborough Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions