What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5230191?

The tribunal order states: Caroline Beggs must pay Whalan and Partners Limited trading as Bayleys

How much money was awarded in case 5230191?

Compensation: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Previous Order Application 5124331 D…: $11,050.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,792.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5230191?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5230191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11724674-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5230191?

The tribunal order states: Caroline Beggs must pay Whalan and Partners Limited trading as Bayleys

How much money was awarded in case 5230191?

Compensation: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Previous Order Application 5124331 D…: $11,050.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,792.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5230191?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5230191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11724674-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

336 Halkett Road, West Melton, RD 1, West Melton 7671 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5230191 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5230191 — net $7,942.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears from date of last order to 3 April 2025	$2,792.86		Rent arrears from date of last order to 3 April 2025
Previous order application 5124331 dated 11 March 2025	$11,050.00		Previous order application 5124331 dated 11 March 2025
Compensation – loss of enjoyment of tenancy		$2,500.00	Compensation – loss of enjoyment of tenancy
Total award	$13,842.86	$2,500.00
Net award	$7,942.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,942.86

Order

Caroline Beggs must pay Whalan and Partners Limited trading as Bayleys Property Management as agent for Zouga Trust $7,942.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 (6230639-002) to Whalan and Partners Limited trading as Bayleys Property Management as agent for Zouga Trust immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Watson represented the landlord. The owners of the property also attended.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation in the form of a rent abatement due to alleged failures by the landlord to maintain and repair the premises. Background
The tenancy started on 20 March 2024.
During the tenancy there were issues with the upstairs plumbing which meant the tenant had very restricted use of the upstairs bathroom. There was a second bathroom downstairs which the tenant and her teenage children used. But one of the things that attracted the tenant to the property was separate bathrooms for her and her children.
There were some other repair issues during the tenancy that were not central to the tenant’s application. However, she alleges that the well water was not properly filtered, and unsuitable for drinking. She believes the well water might have resulted in some health issues she and her children experienced.
The property was a rural property described as a 2-hecatre lifestyle property. The tenant owns a rural property nearby and is therefore familiar with the area.
The tenant considered that the landlord (not the owners) did not adequately respond to her concerns, so she stopped paying rent.
The Tribunal first heard an application by the landlord to terminate the tenancy due to rent arrears. The tenant sought to adjourn that hearing as she was in Scotland dealing with a family matter. I declined the adjournment of the landlord’s application due to the level of rent arrears. I heard the landlord’s application but agreed to adjourn the tenant’s application until her return to New Zealand.
On 11 March 2025, I made an order terminating the tenancy with an order for rent arrears to that date, and the filing fee.
Despite paying no rent, the tenant remained in possession after the date set by the Tribunal for possession to pass to the landlord. She vacated the tenancy on 3 April 2025. Issues
The issues for the Tribunal to determine on these applications are: •Has the landlord proved a claim for additional rent arears? •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation for failure by the landlord to maintain and repair the premises? If so, what amount of compensation should the Tribunal award? Relevant legal principles
Section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them is the responsibility to pay rent when due.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state and to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises).
Section 85 RTA provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 Discussion
The tenant accepted that the amount of rent claimed by the landlord was correct. I have therefore included the amount awarded in the Tribunal’s earlier decision with the additional amount of rent owing until the date the tenant vacated the premises. So, this order replaces and incorporates the earlier order made on Application No: 5124331.
The onus of proof rests with the person making the application. They must prove their claims to the civil standard which is on the balance of probabilities.
Following my earlier directions, the tenant set out a written statement of her claims, and the landlord a written response. I need not repeat the statements here.
While the tenant alleges issues with the drinking water from the well (denied by the owner Mrs Mackey who gave evidence), there is no objective documentary evidence to establish any issue with the drinking water such as contamination.
The tenant’s suspicion that the water might have caused some health issues is speculation. The Tribunal received no evidence to prove that allegation.
The plumbing issues in the upstairs bathroom are accepted by the landlord as having caused some inconvenience to the tenant.
The tenant gave evidence that the upstairs toilet did not function properly, nor the shower, and the repairs were considerably delayed. She described some issues in the downstairs bathroom as well. Each party addressed the reasons for the delays.
Compensation is not punitive; it recognises loss. This is not a case where the landlord refused to act. It did action repair requests as detailed in the documentary evidence Ms Watson produced, but for various reasons the repairs were delayed, and appear not to have resolved the plumbing issues completely.
As a result, the tenant suffered a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy. But along with that loss there was a loss suffered by the landlord which needs to be acknowledged. The tenant simply stopped paying rent but remained in possession. Mrs Mackey described the significant financial hardship she and her husband experienced as a result.
Section 85 RTA directs the Tribunal to determine each dispute taking account of the substantial merits and justice of the case.
Rent can only abate when premises are destroyed, in whole or in part, so as to become uninhabitable. That was not the case here. The tenant erred by simply stopping her rent payments while remaining in possession. She retained all the benefits of the tenancy (albeit with the described plumbing issues) while the landlord was left considerably out of pocket.
Had she not chosen that course of action, the Tribunal might have been persuaded to award her a higher amount of compensation. But the effects of her actions on the landlord are properly part of the equation as they go to the substantial merits and justice of the case.
For the delayed and unsuccessful plumbing repairs I award the tenant compensation of $2,500.00. No award is made for the alleged unsafe water as the tenant has not proved that the water was not suitable for consumption. Result
The landlord’s application is successful. The tenant owes additional rent of $2,792.86. When combined with the earlier order, the tenant’s rent liability is $13,842.86 (including the filing fee on the first landlord application).
The tenant’s application for compensation is successful in the amount of $2,500.00.
Deducting the amount of compensation awarded to the tenant from the landlord’s rent claim, and allowing for the bond to be paid to the landlord, the tenant must pay the landlord $7,942.86.
I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fees. An award to one party would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5230191 — net $7,942.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears from date of last order to 3 April 2025	$2,792.86		Rent arrears from date of last order to 3 April 2025
Previous order application 5124331 dated 11 March 2025	$11,050.00		Previous order application 5124331 dated 11 March 2025
Compensation – loss of enjoyment of tenancy		$2,500.00	Compensation – loss of enjoyment of tenancy
Total award	$13,842.86	$2,500.00
Net award	$7,942.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,942.86

Order

Caroline Beggs must pay Whalan and Partners Limited trading as Bayleys Property Management as agent for Zouga Trust $7,942.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 (6230639-002) to Whalan and Partners Limited trading as Bayleys Property Management as agent for Zouga Trust immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Watson represented the landlord. The owners of the property also attended.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation in the form of a rent abatement due to alleged failures by the landlord to maintain and repair the premises. Background
The tenancy started on 20 March 2024.
During the tenancy there were issues with the upstairs plumbing which meant the tenant had very restricted use of the upstairs bathroom. There was a second bathroom downstairs which the tenant and her teenage children used. But one of the things that attracted the tenant to the property was separate bathrooms for her and her children.
There were some other repair issues during the tenancy that were not central to the tenant’s application. However, she alleges that the well water was not properly filtered, and unsuitable for drinking. She believes the well water might have resulted in some health issues she and her children experienced.
The property was a rural property described as a 2-hecatre lifestyle property. The tenant owns a rural property nearby and is therefore familiar with the area.
The tenant considered that the landlord (not the owners) did not adequately respond to her concerns, so she stopped paying rent.
The Tribunal first heard an application by the landlord to terminate the tenancy due to rent arrears. The tenant sought to adjourn that hearing as she was in Scotland dealing with a family matter. I declined the adjournment of the landlord’s application due to the level of rent arrears. I heard the landlord’s application but agreed to adjourn the tenant’s application until her return to New Zealand.
On 11 March 2025, I made an order terminating the tenancy with an order for rent arrears to that date, and the filing fee.
Despite paying no rent, the tenant remained in possession after the date set by the Tribunal for possession to pass to the landlord. She vacated the tenancy on 3 April 2025. Issues
The issues for the Tribunal to determine on these applications are: •Has the landlord proved a claim for additional rent arears? •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation for failure by the landlord to maintain and repair the premises? If so, what amount of compensation should the Tribunal award? Relevant legal principles
Section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them is the responsibility to pay rent when due.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state and to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises).
Section 85 RTA provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 Discussion
The tenant accepted that the amount of rent claimed by the landlord was correct. I have therefore included the amount awarded in the Tribunal’s earlier decision with the additional amount of rent owing until the date the tenant vacated the premises. So, this order replaces and incorporates the earlier order made on Application No: 5124331.
The onus of proof rests with the person making the application. They must prove their claims to the civil standard which is on the balance of probabilities.
Following my earlier directions, the tenant set out a written statement of her claims, and the landlord a written response. I need not repeat the statements here.
While the tenant alleges issues with the drinking water from the well (denied by the owner Mrs Mackey who gave evidence), there is no objective documentary evidence to establish any issue with the drinking water such as contamination.
The tenant’s suspicion that the water might have caused some health issues is speculation. The Tribunal received no evidence to prove that allegation.
The plumbing issues in the upstairs bathroom are accepted by the landlord as having caused some inconvenience to the tenant.
The tenant gave evidence that the upstairs toilet did not function properly, nor the shower, and the repairs were considerably delayed. She described some issues in the downstairs bathroom as well. Each party addressed the reasons for the delays.
Compensation is not punitive; it recognises loss. This is not a case where the landlord refused to act. It did action repair requests as detailed in the documentary evidence Ms Watson produced, but for various reasons the repairs were delayed, and appear not to have resolved the plumbing issues completely.
As a result, the tenant suffered a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy. But along with that loss there was a loss suffered by the landlord which needs to be acknowledged. The tenant simply stopped paying rent but remained in possession. Mrs Mackey described the significant financial hardship she and her husband experienced as a result.
Section 85 RTA directs the Tribunal to determine each dispute taking account of the substantial merits and justice of the case.
Rent can only abate when premises are destroyed, in whole or in part, so as to become uninhabitable. That was not the case here. The tenant erred by simply stopping her rent payments while remaining in possession. She retained all the benefits of the tenancy (albeit with the described plumbing issues) while the landlord was left considerably out of pocket.
Had she not chosen that course of action, the Tribunal might have been persuaded to award her a higher amount of compensation. But the effects of her actions on the landlord are properly part of the equation as they go to the substantial merits and justice of the case.
For the delayed and unsuccessful plumbing repairs I award the tenant compensation of $2,500.00. No award is made for the alleged unsafe water as the tenant has not proved that the water was not suitable for consumption. Result
The landlord’s application is successful. The tenant owes additional rent of $2,792.86. When combined with the earlier order, the tenant’s rent liability is $13,842.86 (including the filing fee on the first landlord application).
The tenant’s application for compensation is successful in the amount of $2,500.00.
Deducting the amount of compensation awarded to the tenant from the landlord’s rent claim, and allowing for the bond to be paid to the landlord, the tenant must pay the landlord $7,942.86.
I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fees. An award to one party would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5230191 — Rent arrears at 336 Halkett Road, West Melton, RD 1, West Melton 7671

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5230191 — Rent arrears at 336 Halkett Road, West Melton, RD 1, West Melton 7671

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions