What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5157535?

The tribunal order states: Eves Realty Limited as agent for Jaswant Singh must pay Lisa Marie Kiri

How much money was awarded in case 5157535?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5157535?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5157535?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11852442-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5157535?

The tribunal order states: Eves Realty Limited as agent for Jaswant Singh must pay Lisa Marie Kiri

How much money was awarded in case 5157535?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5157535?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5157535?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11852442-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2A Allport Road, Paengaroa, Paengaroa 3189 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5157535 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenancy commenced in December 2020 and ended on 1 March 2025.

The tenant has made several claims for compensation and exemplary damages relating to breaches for a failure to maintain, healthy homes standards, breach of quiet enjoyment and unlawful entry. Failure to maintain

The tenant says that during the tenancy there were several maintenance issues at the property, and despite numerous attempts to raise concerns and requests for maintenance, the issues remained unresolved and ultimately resulted in the tenant relocating to another tenancy property.

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

The tenant submits that there was a shower leak and subsequent mould, delays in responses to requests for maintenance, inadequate replacement of appliances, excessive tenant responsibility for maintenance and ongoing issues with stray cats. The tenant says that due to some of these items, she and her family had health and safety concerns and experienced health issues. Medical records have been provided.

The tenant has provided a detailed chronology in support of her claim, that I summarise as follows: a. 2019-2020 – moved into the property, shower leak presents immediately and is reported multiple times, microwave not working, first signs of mould. b. 2020-2021 – mould worsens (spreads into wardrobe and bedroom), family has increased respiratory issues, shower still not repaired resulting in an unusable bathroom, faulty ceiling light wiring, tenant assumes responsibility for garden maintenance. c. 2021-2022 – kitchen tap becomes faulty (significant delays in response), front door lock broken, and despite being reported is not repaired for two years leaving the house unsecure and creating fear, mould continues to grow, damp smell worsens. d. 2022-2024 – second shower becomes unusable, microwave replaced with old/dirty microwave, ongoing issues with stray cats urinating and defecating inside – multiple reports to landlord and no action taken. e. 2024-2025 – mould infestation becomes severe, ongoing damp smell, wet carpet, and worsening health issues, despite repeated requests the landlord failed to repair or address, tenant forced to vacate the property due to health and safety concerns.

The tenant has also provided copies of routine inspections (including photographs) since early in the tenancy to show she raised issues about the shower/bathroom leaks as early as 2020 and continued to raise this and other issues detailed above throughout. In every single report, the property manager has recommended that maintenance work be done to the main bathroom.

In addition, in early 2025 the tenant obtained a building inspection report due to the severity of the damage and widespread presence of black mould. The report includes photographs that show extensive black mould and damage and it notes that “the water damage and black mould looks to have remained untreated for a prolonged period of time, estimated from 3-5 years”, it further notes rotten timber and the spreading of black mould on the walls, plasterboards, and timber framing and says that “based on my experience in dealing with similar leak-related issues, this sustained level of water damage and mould infestation that has been left untreated poses a high [risk] to the occupants health”.

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

Breaching any of the 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 of the RTA. I note also that Section 46 of the RTA also requires the landlord to provide and maintain locks to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.

The property manager has provided a chronology that shows that the issue with the shower was noted as early as 2021 and continued to be raised throughout the tenancy.

The landlord says that they did try to remedy most things as soon as raised. They say that: a. they did not know what they could do about the cats, b. the tenant offered many times to repair items themselves, c. they knew about the shower and did want to repair it but the property needed to be vacant to do the works and therefore they were unable to do it.

The property manager confirmed that they had received notice by the tenant of the outstanding maintenance items.

With respect to the tenant being required to carry out property maintenance, the landlord says that it was part of the agreement, and that they let her borrow equipment to do so, and as she didn’t have sufficient funds to purchase a lawn mower, they purchased it for her and let her pay it off.

They ultimately say that they tried to work with the tenant and did their best and were waiting for her to advise when she was taking a holiday before doing repairs. They also say they allowed her to go into rent arrears sometimes and tried to be understanding.

Despite this, I find that on the evidence the landlord failed to maintain the property and failed to keep the property in a state of good repair. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

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.

A landlord is deemed to know and understand tenancy law. Any breach therefore must be considered intentional. The impact of this breach was considerable stress and health impact for the tenant, and ultimately a need to find alternative accommodation. It is in the public interest that landlords properly maintain properties to ensure they are healthy for tenants.

I find it just to award exemplary damages in the amount of $4,000.00. This amount is at the high end to reflect the length of time the landlord knew about the mould in the shower and surrounding walls and the impact these issues were having on the property. In my view, they did not take sufficient steps. It also reflects how many other maintenance items were raised by the tenant without reasonable response.

The landlord may have wanted the tenant to advise when they were voluntarily leaving the property for a holiday so they could repair the main bathroom – however, that is no excuse for failing for maintain, and the RTA requires landlords to repair the property, even if it does impact the tenant’s ability to stay or live in the property. Other compensation claims for failure to maintenance

The tenant has made further claims for compensation, including: a. Loss of use of the bathroom and wardrobe (approximately two years at $50.00/per week). b. Maintenance failures of $1,000.00. c. Out of pocket expenses $300.00 (for items that should have been the landlord’s responsibility). d. $800.00 damage caused by stray animals. e. Relocation costs of $2,000.00 (forced to vacate due to uninhabitable conditions). f. A refund of the extra rent paid of $14,874.00 (being the difference in rent paid compared to the original rent ($630.00/week baseline over four years).

The tenant did not issue any notices to remedy during the tenancy. I also have not seen any requests for refunds during the tenancy, nor is there any evidence of a request for a rent reduction (see section 56 and section 24A of the RTA).

In addition, there is no evidence (for example, receipts or invoices) of how the figures sought are calculated for maintenance failures, out of pocket expenses and damage by stray animals. I am also not satisfied that rent would not have increased despite the maintenance items, over the course of the tenancy.

These claims are accordingly dismissed.

With respect to relocation costs, although these were likely to have been incurred because of the unresolved maintenance issues, it is also likely that had the repair works been carried out in compliance with the RTA, the tenant also would have been required to relocate.

This claim is therefore dismissed.

I am satisfied however that based on the evidence received it is just to award an amount for loss of use. This was one bathroom and a wardrobe in the house, and so I find it just to award two years rent reduction of $25.00 per week. This results in total compensation of $2,600.00.

All other claims for compensation in respect of maintenance are dismissed. Unlawful entry

The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.

In particular, the tenant says that from 2022 there were several breaches of quiet enjoyment through the landlord or contractors entering the property without 48hours notice, unannounced visits while the tenant was home, and that the landlord failed to respect the agreed terms around access to a water tank (which was accessed through the tenant’s property).

A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.

However, premises do not include the land around the property, and the landlord (or their contractors) are able to enter the land to carry out maintenance.

I therefore find there is insufficient evidence that they have entered the premises itself unlawfully, and this claim is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression

Because the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

The tenant and landlord have not sought name suppression. However, the property manager sought name suppression on the basis that there had been two property managers over the course of the tenancy, and they did not want to be affected by actions (or inaction) taken by the previous property manager.

Although I am sympathetic to the property manager’s position, they did take over the property management in late 2022, and I am not satisfied that any of the property managers’ interests raised sufficiently outweigh those of the public. See section 95A of the RTA. The request for name suppression is declined. R Harvey-Lane 12 June 2025

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenancy commenced in December 2020 and ended on 1 March 2025.

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

Under section 45 of the RTA, 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 property manager has provided a chronology that shows that the issue with the shower was noted as early as 2021 and continued to be raised throughout the tenancy.

The property manager confirmed that they had received notice by the tenant of the outstanding maintenance items.

Despite this, I find that on the evidence the landlord failed to maintain the property and failed to keep the property in a state of good repair. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

These claims are accordingly dismissed.

This claim is therefore dismissed.

All other claims for compensation in respect of maintenance are dismissed. Unlawful entry

The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.

However, premises do not include the land around the property, and the landlord (or their contractors) are able to enter the land to carry out maintenance.

I therefore find there is insufficient evidence that they have entered the premises itself unlawfully, and this claim is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression

Because the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5157535 — Rent arrears at 2A Allport Road, Paengaroa, Paengaroa 3189

Tenancy Tribunal case 5157535 — Rent arrears at 2A Allport Road, Paengaroa, Paengaroa 3189

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions