What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5273661?

The tribunal order states: Nick Adams must pay Tegan Lorraine Mackay $1,573.00 (the amount payable)

How much money was awarded in case 5273661?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5273661?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5273661?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13398512-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5273661?

The tribunal order states: Nick Adams must pay Tegan Lorraine Mackay $1,573.00 (the amount payable)

How much money was awarded in case 5273661?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5273661?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5273661?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13398512-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

37 Austin Street, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5273661 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5273661 — net $1,573.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$400.00		Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Agreed compensation payable to tenant		$2,000.00	Agreed compensation payable to tenant
Total award	$427.00	$2,000.00
Net award		$1,573.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,573.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5273661 — net $1,573.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$400.00		Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Agreed compensation payable to tenant		$2,000.00	Agreed compensation payable to tenant
Total award	$427.00	$2,000.00
Net award		$1,573.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,573.00

Order

Nick Adams must pay Tegan Lorraine Mackay $1,573.00 (the amount payable) calculated as shown in table below.

The amount payable (as set out in order 1 above) is to be deducted from the balance owing by Tegan Mackay to Nick Adams pursuant to the Tribunal order dated 22 September 2022 under application number 4374260 (the debt). If the amount of the debt still owing is less than the amount payable, then the balance of the amount payable is to be paid to Tegan Lorraine Mackay immediately.
The tenant’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background
The tenant, Ms Mackay, had a tenancy of the premises commencing on 10 February 2021. Rent was agreed $250 per week. No bond was paid. The tenancy was initially for a six-month fixed term. It then became a periodic tenancy.
The property is a 100-year-old plus villa. Mr Adams was looking after the property for its owner (Mark) after Mark was given a 10-year prison sentence. Ms Mackay learned of the availability of the property through a mutual friend of hers and Mr Adams’ (Tania). Ms Mackay said that she also knew Mark before he went to prison. She said that she knew before agreeing to the tenancy that the villa needed some work and that the rent was low because of this.
Ms Mackay fell into arrears with rent approximately six weeks after the tenancy commenced and, by June 2022, she stopped paying rent altogether. Mr Adams applied to the Tribunal or an order terminating the tenancy and a rent arrears order, and on 22 September 2022, the Tribunal made a conditional termination order (under application number 4374260). Rent owing to 27 September 2022 was said to be $6,880.00.
Ms Mackay did not comply with the conditions of that order and the tenancy was terminated. Ms Mackay’s application for rehearing and her subsequent application to the District Court for a stay of enforcement of the order were both dismissed.
Mr Adams begun enforcement of the possession order and the monetary order, and Ms Mackay vacated the premises on 21 December 2022. The parties agreed that, as of 24 February 2026, Ms Mackay has paid approximately $4,125.00 towards the debt leaving an outstanding balance of approximately $2,775.00.
On 28 May 2025 Ms Mackay filed her application against Mr Adams. The application first came before me on 15 September 2025 and, in an order dated the same day, I struck out some of her claims on the basis that those claims under the principle known as res judicata. Ms Mackay confirmed that her remaining claims are as listed in my 15 September order. I repeat them below for convenience: Reimbursement of costs for improvements/repairs completed by her during the tenancy ($40,846.00), and compensation for: i.Failure by Mr Adams to repair and maintain the premises; ii.Providing an incorrect Healthy Homes Statement at the commencement of the tenancy; iii.Failing to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards with respect to insulation, heating, ventilation (bathroom extractor fan), and draught stopping; iv.Storing the owner’s goods in a bedroom at the premises ($5,280.00); v.Breach of her right to quiet enjoyment; vi.Breach of an agreement made after 22 September 2022 whereby Mr Adams promised to deduct from rent owing the sum of $2,000.00.
Ms Mackay did not pursue her claim for exemplary damages after being made aware of the 12-month limitation period for filing an exemplary damages claim.
Mr Adams subsequently filed a cross application for rent from 28 September 2022 until Ms Mackay vacated the premises on 21 December 2022 totalling $400.00. Ms MacKay did not dispute the amount of rent claimed. Ms Mackay’s claim for failure to repair and maintain the premises, for reimbursement for work she completed, and for breach of an agreement made after 22 September
Ms Mackay’s claim for reimbursement for the work she completed at the premises is linked to her claim for failure by Mr Adams to repair and maintain them. She said that she completed the work herself because Mr Adams did not do so. The work completed by her is extensive. It includes electrical and plumbing upgrading, bathroom renovations, replacing wall and ceiling linings, re painting inside and out, window repairs, installing new curtains and landscaping the grounds.
A landlord’s obligation to repair and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is found in section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). What is a reasonable state of repair is to be assessed according to the age and character of the premises. Section 40(1)(d) of the Act is also relevant. It requires the tenant to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage or of the need for repairs to the premises. Thus, once the tenant notifies the landlord or the landlord otherwise becomes aware of the need for repairs, the obligation in section 45(1)(b) requires those repairs to be attended to in a timely manner.
Ms Mackay accepts Mr Adams’ evidence that the only maintenance or repair issue he was aware of or was told about by Ms Mackay was a roof leak around the wood burner. Mr Adams said that he had arranged to have the roof repaired when Ms Mackay told him that she had already had it repaired. He said that Ms Mackay also told him that she had replaced the ceiling in the living room and kitchen and installed downlights so there was no need to have the ceiling around the wood burner repaired. Ms Mackay did not dispute his evidence.
I therefore find that Mr Adams is not in breach of his obligation to repair and maintain the premises and Ms Mackay’s claim for compensation for breach of section 45(1)(b) of then Act is therefore dismissed.
Mr Adams will only be liable to reimburse Ms Mackay for the costs incurred for work done on the premises if Ms Mackay establishes that there was an enforceable agreement between her and Mr Adams, on sufficiently certain terms, whereby Mr Adams promised to pay Ms Mackay for the work; or where section 45(1)(d) of the Act applies. That section states the landlord is required to: “compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where – (i) The state of disrepair has arisen otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant and is likely to cause injury to persons or property or is otherwise serious and urgent; and (ii)The tenant has given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so.”
Ms Adams did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that there was a binding and enforceable agreement between her and Mr Adams whereby Mr Adams would reimburse her for the costs to complete the work she completed, and she does not dispute that she did not give Me Adams notice of the need for repairs or made reasonable attempts to do so. There is also insufficient evidence to establish that any of the disrepair was likely to cause injury or was otherwise serious or urgent.
Ms Mackay claims that she was misled by Mr Adams into believing that the tenancy would be a long term one and she would eventually be able to purchase the property from Mark. She said that Tania and Mr Adams told her that it was unlikely that Mark would return to the premises and therefore it was likely that the tenancy would be a long-term one, and she may be able to purchase the property from Mark in due course. She therefore “put her heart and soul” into the premises completing repairs and upgrades. She said that she did not bother Mr Adams about any work that needed to be done because she understood that it would be her property in the future.
Mr Adams did not dispute telling Ms Mackay that the tenancy is likely to be a long term one or that she may be able to buy the house from Mark in the future, but he said that it was only a conversation, there was no commitment or agreement made. He said that other than her failure to pay the rent, Ms Mackay was a very good tenant, and the tenancy only ended because she did not pay the rent.
I do not consider that Ms Mackay has established that Mr Adams misled her into completing the work on the premises. I accept that both believed that the tenancy would be a long term one but that was always contingent on Ms Mackay complying with her obligation to pay rent. I also find that the discussion regarding the possibility of Ms Mackay purchasing the property in the future was just that – a discussion of the possibility to do so. There was no agreement giving her a right to purchase and she was aware that the property was owned by Mark and therefore any agreement to purchase would need to be with him (Ms Mackay mentioned that she was wanting to discuss with Mark the possibility of a ‘vendor mortgage’ to enable her to purchase it).
I therefore find that Mr Adams is not legally obligated to reimburse Ms Mackay for the costs she incurred to complete the work claimed.
However, Mr Adams accepts that he and Ms Mackay agreed, after the Tribunal hearing of application number 4374260 on 22 September 2022, that she could deduct $2,000 from the rent owed by her in consideration for improvements she made to the premises, and he confirmed that he is still willing to do so (the agreement is mentioned in the rehearing decision dated 1 December 2022 under application 4374260, at paragraphs 9 and 10).
I therefore record that agreement in my order. Healthy Homes Statement and Healthy Homes Standards
Ms Mackay claims that Mr Adams is in breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. She also claims that the “Healthy Homes Standards – Current Level of Compliance” statement provided with the tenancy agreement was false because Mr Adams ticked boxes that were not true. In particular: the statement that the premises had ceiling insulation; and the statement that the premises were free from “unintentional and unreasonable holes that allow noticeable draughts”.
Where a tenancy commenced before 1 July 2021 (as did this tenancy), the landlord was not required to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards until 1 July 2025. Thus, Mr Adams was not required to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards until after this tenancy ended. This includes the heating standards (Ms Mackay claimed that wood burner in the living room likely did not comply with the heating standard). This claim is therefore dismissed.
I also dismiss the claim for providing an incorrect Healthy Homes Compliance statement. There is evidence that the premises did have the ceiling insulation as claimed in the statement and there is no evidence to support that the insulation did not comply with the insulation standards that applied in February 2021. There is also insufficient evidence to support that the premises was not free from unreasonable draughts, taking into account the age of the premises and the old sash style windows, which inevitably allow some draughts. Storage of owner’s goods
Mark’s possessions were stored in one of the bedrooms at the premises and this room was therefore unavailable to Ms Mackay for her use.
However, Ms Mackay accepts that she was aware before she agreed to the tenancy that the bedroom was for the storage of Marks possessions and that this room was not part of the tenancy.
This claim is therefore dismissed. Quiet enjoyment
The right to quiet enjoyment is found in section 38 of the Act. Section 38(1) provides that a tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or the landlord’s agent. In addition, a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises: section 38(2) of the Act.
Ms Mackay claims that Mr Adams breached her right to quiet enjoyment and did not act in good faith in his communications to her regarding the rent arrears and the ending of the tenancy.
I do not consider that there was anything in any of the correspondence between her and Mr Adams that hasbeen provided in evidence that objectively come close to constituting a breach of Ms Mackay’s right to quiet enjoyment. Mr Adams was simply expressing his legitimate right to have the rent paid and warning Ms Mackay of the possibility of her losing her tenancy if she does not do so. Mr Adams was also entitled to refuse to agree to Ms Mackay’s offers to pay off the arrears to avoid him enforcing the termination order made by the Tribunal.
This claim is therefore dismissed. Unlawful entry
Section 48 of the Act sets out the landlord’s right to enter the premises. That section provides that the landlord may enter the premises to complete inspections or do necessary repairs either with the consent of the tenants or after providing the appropriate notice of the intended entry. For the purposes of section 48, “premises” does not include land or facilities. Therefore, a landlord or the landlords’ agents are not prevented from knocking on the door or entering the grounds for other legitimate purposes, provided he or she does not enter the house without the tenant’s consent.
Ms Mackay claims that Mr Adams came to the premises on several occasions in breach of section 48, including to drop off a ladder (in May 2022) and later to discuss payment of rent. However, she accepts that Mr Adams never entered the house without first giving notice or without her consent.
This claim is therefore also dismissed. Tribunal application fee
Mr Adams has been fully successful in his claim for rent. He is therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee paid by him.
Ms Mackay has been mostly unsuccessful in her claims. I therefore do not consider this an appropriate case to award her payment of the application fee paid by her.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5273661 — Rent arrears at 37 Austin Street, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5273661 — Rent arrears at 37 Austin Street, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions