What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5148152?

The tribunal order states: Ahmed Abdullah Alzaher and Mashael Omran Al Khamis must pay Kāinga Ora–

How much money was awarded in case 5148152?

Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $43.34 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5148152?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5148152?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12021043-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5148152?

The tribunal order states: Ahmed Abdullah Alzaher and Mashael Omran Al Khamis must pay Kāinga Ora–

How much money was awarded in case 5148152?

Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $43.34 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5148152?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5148152?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12021043-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 4, 57 Moore Street, Howick, Auckland 2014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5148152 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5148152 — net $103.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Oven/stove cleaning	$60.00	Oven/stove cleaning
Repairs: wall repairs	$43.34	Repairs: wall repairs
Net award	$103.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$103.34

Order

Ahmed Abdullah Alzaher and Mashael Omran Al Khamis must pay Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities $103.34 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The tenant’s counterclaims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 24 June 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy. The tenant counterclaimed for return of 25% of the rent paid and compensation for breach of privacy.

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.
The tenant did not leave the oven reasonably clean and tidy.
Only the amounts ordered are proved for oven cleaning.

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.
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.
A section of the wall behind the door was damaged 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. Has the landlord breached the tenant’s privacy?
The tenant seeks compensation of $3,000 for unauthorized use of their current address without approval.
Section 38(2) RTA provides that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
The tenant has voluntarily given her address to the landlord’s contact centre advisor over the phone when she gave notice to end the tenancy.
The landlord divulged the tenant’s address on the application for the purpose of service of the notice of hearing.
I do not consider that the landlord have breached the tenant’s rights in the circumstances. The landlord is generally encouraged under the RTA to supply as much contact details of the other party (the tenant in this case) in Tribunal applications to ensure that the tenant is given proper notice of hearing.
When the tenant informed the property manager that she does not wish to receive the final accounts by post, the manager answered in the affirmative. The property manager did not know that the tenant had already given her next address to the contact centre prior to that communication. There is therefore no deliberate act by the property manager to go against the tenant’s wishes.
In any event, the Tribunal can only address instances of breach of the tenant’s privacy in the tenant’s use of the premises. At the time the tenant’s address was used on the Tribunal application form, the tenant has already vacated the tenanted premises in question.
In Scott v Sidhu [2024] NZDC 1549, the district court held that the Tribunal was wrong to have awarded general damages of $500 against the landlord for breach of section 38(2) because the alleged interference to the tenant’s quiet enjoyment did not occur with the tenant’s use of the premises. Judge Harrop said: [48] s38(2)...as well understood at common law in relation to the covenant of quiet enjoyment, relates to inappropriate interference with the tenant’s use of the premises. The inappropriate comments [the landlord] made did not interfere in the use of the premises by the tenants. If, while the tenants were at home, [the landlord] had come to the property and shouted the same comments, say through a window, that may have been different. [49] I also accept that there were other potential avenues of complaint available to the tenants if they wished (or if they now wish) to pursue a complaint about the comments.
General privacy concerns and breaches of privacy outside the tenant’s use of the premises are matters under the purview of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
For those reasons, I dismiss the tenant’s claim to do with breach of privacy.

Has the landlord failed to maintain the premises?

The tenant seeks compensation of $5,840 equivalent to 25% of the total rent paid during tenancy for continuous and unresolved habitability issues, and costs incurred due to landlord’s negligence in maintaining the premises.
I firstly set out the relevant legal principles that I must address when dealing with complaints raised by the tenant regarding maintenance.
Under section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’), a landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they applied to the premises.
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.
Where the tenant has notified the landlord and the landlord has undertaken maintenance within a reasonable time, no award of compensation will be made.
Considering the specific instances of complaints raised by the tenant of items requiring attention throughout the tenancy, I find that the social housing landlord had carried out inspection and undertaken repairs to the complained items within a reasonable time.
Plumbing work was carried out on the same day the leak was reported on 17 May 2023.
The hot water cylinder was replaced on 29 May 2025 within a week from the tenant reporting weak hot water pressure.
The main drain was unblocked on the same day after the bathtub was found to be leaking on 17 July 2023.
Carpet cleaning had been requested on 20 July and cleaning undertaken on 26 July 2023.
Complaint about a leaking toilet on 3 October 2023 was attended to and completed on 5 October 2024.
The landlord attended to another complaint of a toilet leak at the base on the same day on 13 May 2024.
The landlord’s work orders filed with the Tribunal detailed each maintenance issue raised and dates they were attended to.
I find that the landlord has duly attended to all of the tenant’s complaints within a reasonable time. There had been no breach of the landlord in respect of their maintenance obligations during this tenancy.
For those reasons, I dismiss the tenant’s claims on failure to maintain.
Only the amounts ordered on the table above are proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5148152 — net $103.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Oven/stove cleaning	$60.00	Oven/stove cleaning
Repairs: wall repairs	$43.34	Repairs: wall repairs
Net award	$103.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$103.34

Order

Ahmed Abdullah Alzaher and Mashael Omran Al Khamis must pay Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities $103.34 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The tenant’s counterclaims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 24 June 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy. The tenant counterclaimed for return of 25% of the rent paid and compensation for breach of privacy.

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.
The tenant did not leave the oven reasonably clean and tidy.
Only the amounts ordered are proved for oven cleaning.

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.
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.
A section of the wall behind the door was damaged 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. Has the landlord breached the tenant’s privacy?
The tenant seeks compensation of $3,000 for unauthorized use of their current address without approval.
Section 38(2) RTA provides that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
The tenant has voluntarily given her address to the landlord’s contact centre advisor over the phone when she gave notice to end the tenancy.
The landlord divulged the tenant’s address on the application for the purpose of service of the notice of hearing.
I do not consider that the landlord have breached the tenant’s rights in the circumstances. The landlord is generally encouraged under the RTA to supply as much contact details of the other party (the tenant in this case) in Tribunal applications to ensure that the tenant is given proper notice of hearing.
When the tenant informed the property manager that she does not wish to receive the final accounts by post, the manager answered in the affirmative. The property manager did not know that the tenant had already given her next address to the contact centre prior to that communication. There is therefore no deliberate act by the property manager to go against the tenant’s wishes.
In any event, the Tribunal can only address instances of breach of the tenant’s privacy in the tenant’s use of the premises. At the time the tenant’s address was used on the Tribunal application form, the tenant has already vacated the tenanted premises in question.
In Scott v Sidhu [2024] NZDC 1549, the district court held that the Tribunal was wrong to have awarded general damages of $500 against the landlord for breach of section 38(2) because the alleged interference to the tenant’s quiet enjoyment did not occur with the tenant’s use of the premises. Judge Harrop said: [48] s38(2)...as well understood at common law in relation to the covenant of quiet enjoyment, relates to inappropriate interference with the tenant’s use of the premises. The inappropriate comments [the landlord] made did not interfere in the use of the premises by the tenants. If, while the tenants were at home, [the landlord] had come to the property and shouted the same comments, say through a window, that may have been different. [49] I also accept that there were other potential avenues of complaint available to the tenants if they wished (or if they now wish) to pursue a complaint about the comments.
General privacy concerns and breaches of privacy outside the tenant’s use of the premises are matters under the purview of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
For those reasons, I dismiss the tenant’s claim to do with breach of privacy.

Has the landlord failed to maintain the premises?

The tenant seeks compensation of $5,840 equivalent to 25% of the total rent paid during tenancy for continuous and unresolved habitability issues, and costs incurred due to landlord’s negligence in maintaining the premises.
I firstly set out the relevant legal principles that I must address when dealing with complaints raised by the tenant regarding maintenance.
Under section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’), a landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they applied to the premises.
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.
Where the tenant has notified the landlord and the landlord has undertaken maintenance within a reasonable time, no award of compensation will be made.
Considering the specific instances of complaints raised by the tenant of items requiring attention throughout the tenancy, I find that the social housing landlord had carried out inspection and undertaken repairs to the complained items within a reasonable time.
Plumbing work was carried out on the same day the leak was reported on 17 May 2023.
The hot water cylinder was replaced on 29 May 2025 within a week from the tenant reporting weak hot water pressure.
The main drain was unblocked on the same day after the bathtub was found to be leaking on 17 July 2023.
Carpet cleaning had been requested on 20 July and cleaning undertaken on 26 July 2023.
Complaint about a leaking toilet on 3 October 2023 was attended to and completed on 5 October 2024.
The landlord attended to another complaint of a toilet leak at the base on the same day on 13 May 2024.
The landlord’s work orders filed with the Tribunal detailed each maintenance issue raised and dates they were attended to.
I find that the landlord has duly attended to all of the tenant’s complaints within a reasonable time. There had been no breach of the landlord in respect of their maintenance obligations during this tenancy.
For those reasons, I dismiss the tenant’s claims on failure to maintain.
Only the amounts ordered on the table above are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5148152 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 57 Moore Street, Howick, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5148152 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 57 Moore Street, Howick, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Has the landlord failed to maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Has the landlord failed to maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions