What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5121588?

The tribunal order states: Viliv Limited to pay Hiki hiki Shahara Whaanga $1,251.29 from the bond held by

How much money was awarded in case 5121588?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,075.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5121588?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5121588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12382927-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5121588?

The tribunal order states: Viliv Limited to pay Hiki hiki Shahara Whaanga $1,251.29 from the bond held by

How much money was awarded in case 5121588?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,075.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5121588?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5121588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12382927-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

27 Yelash Road, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5121588 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5121588 — net $1,548.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 30 December 2024	$2,075.71		Rent arrears to 30 December 2024
Exemplary damages: Failure to repair water leak		$500.00	Failure to repair water leak
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$2,075.71	$527.00
Net award	$1,548.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,548.71

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5121588 — net $1,548.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 30 December 2024	$2,075.71		Rent arrears to 30 December 2024
Exemplary damages: Failure to repair water leak		$500.00	Failure to repair water leak
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$2,075.71	$527.00
Net award	$1,548.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,548.71

Order

Viliv Limited to pay Hiki hiki Shahara Whaanga $1,251.29 from the bond held by Viliv Limited as calculated in the table below.
Viliv Limited is to retain $1,548.71 of the bond, as calculated in the table below.

Reasons

Introduction

Hiki hiki Shahara Whaanga (the Tenant) lived at 27 Yelash Road, Massey, Auckland 0614 (the Premises) owned by Viliv Limited (the Landlord) for two years. The Tenant moved out on 30 December 2024.
The parties agree that the new fixed term tenancy which they entered into in early December 2024, and which commenced 28 December 2024, was brought to an early end, however, they disagree as to when and how the tenancy ended and therefore when the Tenant’s liability to pay rent ended.
The Tenant also says the Landlord failed to fix a water leak on the driveway during the tenancy and seeks exemplary damages for the unlawful act.
The Landlord seeks compensation for cleaning and other damage they say was caused by the Tenant during the tenancy.
The issues I have to determine are: a. When and how did the tenancy come to an end? b. Should the Landlord pay the Tenant exemplary damages for failure to repair a leak in the driveway? c. Should the Tenant pay the Landlord compensation for failing to leave the Premises reasonably clean at the end of tenancy, and/or for the cost of repairing damage to the Premises? d. Should the Tenant be reimbursed the cost of the filing fee? e. To whom should the bond of $2,800 held by the Landlord be paid?
On 9 September 2025, both parties attended the hearing at Waitakere District Court. The Tribunal’s approach to the issues
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim establish their claim “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo 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 or 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.

When and how did the tenancy come to an end?

The Tenant says that on 13 December 2024 she issued a 14-day notice to remedy a breach of the Landlord’s responsibilities, specifically to fix a water leak on the driveway. The Tenant says the tenancy ended on 30 December 2024 when the Landlord failed to remedy the breach and the Tenant moved out.
The Landlord says the tenancy ended because the Tenant moved out and the Landlord had no option but to agree to the tenancy coming to an end. The Landlord says he took back possession on approximately 6 January 2025 and he considers a fair end date would be 31 January 2025, being three weeks after the date he took possession.
Both parties agreed the leak on the driveway had been an issue previously in the tenancy with the Landlord attending in January, March and June 2024 to attempt to remedy it.
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. 1 Where the breach is capable of remedy the applicant party must first serve a notice on the other party requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the party has failed to do so.
The Tenant says after issuing the notice on 13 December 2024, the Landlord did not take any steps to remedy the water leak, which had been complained of previously. The Tenant says that as the Landlord breached their obligations by failing to maintain or repair the leak, and did not remedy the issue within 14 days of the notice issued, the Tenant terminated the tenancy as at 30 December 2024. The Tenant advised the Landlord on that day that she was moving out and she left the keys at the Premises.
The Landlord says he responded to the Tenant’s notice dated 13 December 2024 on the same day, offering her three options, one of which was to agree to the tenancy terminating “by mutual agreement.” The other options included the Landlord arranging a plumber to fix the leak, or, the parties taking no action and suggesting the Tenant “keep an eye.” The Landlord says the Tenant did not 1 Section 56(1) of the Act. respond to his email offering the three options and he took no action as he was awaiting her response. He says he did not hear from the Tenant until 30 December 2024 when she advised she was moving out that day.
I am satisfied it is more likely than not that there was a water leak on the driveway as at 13 December 2024 in breach of the Landlord’s responsibilities to maintain and repair the premises. The Tenant says as at that time, the water was “pouring out” and running across the driveway. As evidence of the history of the issue, the Tenant produced photos taken in April 2023 of water forming channels across the driveway, and videos taken in January 2024 showing water trickling from an underground source after the Landlord had carried out some attempts to repair. I am satisfied it is more likely than not that the water leak the Tenant complained of on 13 December 2024 was a recurrence of the same issue raised by the Tenant in April 2023, January 2024, March 2024 and June 2024. Based on the photos and videos produced by the Tenant, I am satisfied the water leak created potholes and instability on the long driveway (approximately 400m) of what was a rural, or semi-rural, property.
I am satisfied the Tenant gave the Landlord a 14-day notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of and requiring the Landlord to remedy the breach within 14 days of 13 December 2024. I am also satisfied, and the Landlord accepts, that the Landlord did not take any steps to investigate or remedy the issue within the following 14 days. It is not satisfactory for the Landlord to send an email outlining options, which included taking no steps, and take no steps to investigate and/or remedy the breach complained of.
The Tenant then filed an application with the Tribunal on 3 January 2025. The Tenant says she terminated the tenancy on 30 December 2024. I note that the Act does not entitle a tenant (or landlord) to terminate a tenancy under s 56 of the Act themselves, only the Tribunal may do so. However, I acknowledge that the Tenant made an application to the Tribunal promptly and it would not have been just to require the Tenant to remain in the tenancy, with the breach unremedied, until the application was determined.
I am satisfied that the breach was an on-going issue which caused difficulties for the Tenant and meant she was unable to drive her car up the driveway to her home. Because the issue had occurred at least three times in 2024, and because it affected the Tenant’s access to her home, I am satisfied it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy following the issuing of the breach notice.
I order that the fixed-term tenancy came to an end on 30 December 2024. 2 2 Pursuant to s56(1) of the Act.
The Landlord filed a rent summary. During the hearing, the parties confirmed that as at 30 December 2024 the Tenant owed the Landlord rent arrears of $2,075.71. I make an order for rent arrears in that amount. Should the Landlord pay the Tenant exemplary damages for failure to repair a leak in the driveway?
The Tenant claims the Landlord breached their obligations under section 45 of the Act throughout the tenancy by failing to fix a water leak on the driveway.
A landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 3 Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 4
The Tenant says on several occasions, the Tenant asked the Landlord to fix a leak in the water pipe that ran alongside or near to the loose metal driveway. The Tenant says the Landlord made some attempts to fix it, but the issue kept reoccurring. The Tenant says she first noticed the issue in January 2023, one month after moving in. The Tenant produced a photograph taken in April 2023 which shows water was causing channels across the loose metal driveway. The Tenant says she purchased gravel to fill in the potholes and channels created by the water leak in June 2023.
The Tenant says the issue continued and text messages produced showed she complained to the Landlord on 24 January 2024. The Landlord then attended the Premises and undertook repairs on 25 January 2024. A video taken by the Tenant on 26 January 2024 shows water was still flowing after the Landlord’s attempted repairs on 25 January 2024.
The Tenant raised the issue again on 25 March 2024, 5 and the Landlord attended on 26 March 2024. The Landlord says the gravel the Tenant had put onto the driveway was removed and replaced with sand and smaller gravel. The Landlord also asked the Tenant to ensure they did not drive over the land where the leak was coming from.
On 10 June 2024, the Tenant again raised the issue of the leak returning. The Landlord attended on the same day and advised the Tenant the leak was fixed, 6 however on 27 June 2024 the Tenant sent a further text message to advise the Landlord the water was leaking again.
The Landlord produced a graph to show the water usage at the Premises which showed water usage was high in March 2024 (over 300kL), and that by May 3 See section 45 of the Act. 4 See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the Act. 5 Evidence of text messages were produced. 6 Evidence of text messages were produced. 2024 it had reduced (just over 200kL) and reduced further still (to between 100 – 130kL per month) for June – December 2024.
I am satisfied the Tenant has proved the water leak was not remedied, for at least 22 weeks from 24 January 2024 to 27 June 2024. I am satisfied the Tenant’s video evidence taken on 26 January 2024 shows the leak was not remedied by the Landlord’s work on 25 January 2024, and it is more likely than not that that failure led to the complaints made by the Tenant on 25 March 2024 and again on 10 June 2024.
The water usage graph produced by the Landlord indicates the water use reduced to approximately 110kL by June 2024. I accept that evidence suggests it is more likely than not that the water leak was either fixed, or improved, by that date. It would however seem likely that the same issue arose in December 2024, prompting the Tenant’s issuing of the 14-day notice.
I am satisfied that, from 24 January 2024 to 27 June 2024, the Landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to remedy the water leak on the driveway.
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. 7
I am satisfied the Landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally because the Landlord was made aware of the issue on several occasions but failed to ensure the work he undertook was effective. A responsible Landlord would carry out checks in the weeks after the repairs were completed to ensure the water leak had in fact stopped. The Landlord did not do so in this case.
I am satisfied it is just to award exemplary damages as the Tenant gave evidence that the water leak on the driveway had a significant impact on her ability to access her home. The channels and potholes on the loose gravel driveway meant she was unable to traverse the long driveway in a front-drive van and meant visitors could not drive their vehicles to the house. I note that the Tenant was not charged water on a consumption basis, but instead paid a fixed amount each month, therefore the leak did not have a financial impact on the Tenant. 8
Ultimately, the impact of the unlawful act was one of stress and inconvenience to the Tenant. In such circumstances, I consider it appropriate that the Landlord pay the Tenant $500 in exemplary damages to recognise that stress and inconvenience which impacted the Tenant for, at least, six months of the tenancy. 7 See section 109(3) of the Act. 8 Although I accept that the high water usage over 2023 and 2024 meant the new fixed term tenancy agreed to in early December 2024 had a higher monthly fixed payment for water.
I make the order accordingly. Should the Tenant pay the Landlord compensation for failing to leave the Premises reasonably clean at the end of tenancy, and/or for the cost of repairing damage to the

Premises?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 9 Where a landlord alleges the tenant caused damage to the premises a landlord must prove that the damage 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. 10
The Landlord says the Tenant did not leave the Premises reasonably clean and did not mow the lawns at the end of the tenancy. The Landlord relies on photographs taken of the interior of the Premises on 13 January 2025, and photographs taken of the exterior on 31 December 2024. The Landlord says, as at the date of hearing, the Premises have not been cleaned and remain empty.
The Landlord seeks an order for $1,070 for cleaning, based on a quote obtained and dated 27 March 2025. The quote is for cleaning ($700), carpet steam cleaning ($220) and interior window cleaning ($150). The Landlord says he mowed the lawns after the Tenant moved out and seeks compensation of $200 for his time spent doing so.
The Tenant says she left the Premises reasonably clean and tidy, and relied on photographs she took on 30 December 2025, the day she moved out. The Tenant says the lawns were mowed one or two weeks prior to her exit.
I am not satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant failed to leave the Premises reasonably clean and tidy. The photographs produced by the Tenant, taken on the day she exited, show the Premises was left, while not immaculate, at least reasonably clean and tidy. The photographs produced by both parties, to the limited extent they show the lawn, suggest the lawn was also in a reasonably tidy condition.
Even if I am wrong, I am not satisfied the Landlord has proved they have incurred any cost in bringing the Premises up to a reasonably clean standard or that the mowing is more than would be required as upkeep given the Premises is now sitting empty. The evidence of the Landlord is that they have taken no steps to clean the Premises, but have maintained regular mowing, and the property remains empty.
As to the claims for damage caused by the Tenant, the Landlord failed to prove the damage was caused by the Tenant during the tenancy. The Landlord did 9 See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act. 10 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act. not produce photographs, or other evidence, to show that the items the Landlord alleges the Tenant damaged were undamaged at the start of the tenancy.
The only evidence of their original condition which the Landlord produced was a Market Valuation report dated 2 December 2021 which contained only 5 photos. Given those five photos were taken one year before this tenancy commenced in December 2022, and do not clearly show the areas and items which the Landlord claims the Tenant damaged, I find the Landlord has not proved their case and dismiss the Landlord’s claim for compensation for damage.
I note that the Landlord was provided the opportunity to file evidence that the Council rubbish bin was missing at the end of the tenancy, and that the Landlord had incurred the cost of $40 to replace it. The Landlord’s evidence submitted by email shortly after the hearing confirmed the Landlord requested a new council bin in May 2025, however the evidence does not prove the cost allegedly incurred by the Landlord. I am also not satisfied the Landlord proved the council bin was missing at the end of the tenancy.

Should the Tenant be reimbursed the cost of the filing fee?

As the Tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim the Landlord must reimburse the Tenant’s filing fee. To whom should the bond of $2,800 held by the Landlord be paid?
The Landlord confirmed he held the bond of $2,800 in his personal bank account. That is despite the requirement that a landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. 11 I note that breaching that obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00, 12 however, the Tenant in this case did not pursue a claim for exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond.
Given my findings above for rent owed to the Landlord, and exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee owed to the Tenant, I order that the Landlord retain $1,548.71 of the bond and must pay the Tenant the remaining $1,251.29 immediately. 11 Section 19(1) of the Act. 12 Section 19(2) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The Landlord is also reminded of his obligation (in any current and/or future tenancies) to lodge any bond payment with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5121588 — Rent arrears at 27 Yelash Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5121588 — Rent arrears at 27 Yelash Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

When and how did the tenancy come to an end?

Premises?

Should the Tenant be reimbursed the cost of the filing fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

When and how did the tenancy come to an end?

Premises?

Should the Tenant be reimbursed the cost of the filing fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions