Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5284802 — Rent arrears at 30 Jutland Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102
Published 20 April 2026 · Application 5284802
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
J Setefano
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $1,200.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $600.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears to 20 October 2025 | $900.00 | Rent arrears to 20 October 2025 | |
| Compensation – breach of section 45(1)(a | $300.00 | Compensation – breach of section 45(1)(a | |
| Total award | $900.00 | $300.00 | |
| Net award | $600.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $600.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5284802 — net $600.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to 20 October 2025
- Amount
- $900.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears to 20 October 2025
Compensation – breach of section 45(1)(a
- Amount
- $300.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Compensation – breach of section 45(1)(a
Total award
Landlord $900.00 · Tenant $300.00
Net award
Landlord $600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $600.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Tui Parepaoro Tokona, Whare Peke Raihe Tokona and Arthur Stuchbery to pay TBT Property Management Limited As Agent For Sukhdeep Singh Walia $600.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $600.00 (6543593-001) to TBT Property Management Limited As Agent For Sukhdeep Singh Walia immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (6543593-001) to Tui Parepaoro Tokona, Whare Peke Raihe Tokona and Arthur Stuchbery immediately.
Reasons
Introduction
- This proceeding concerns a dispute between TBT Property Management Limited (the landlord) and Tui Parepaoro Tokona, Whare Peke Raihe Tokona, Arthur Stuchbery (the tenants) arising from a residential tenancy governed by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”).
- The landlord seeks recovery of rent arrears and water charges following the end of the tenancy. The tenants have filed a comprehensive cross-application alleging multiple breaches of the Act, including failure to maintain the premises, non- compliance with Healthy Homes Standards, breach of quiet enjoyment, unlawful entry, and claims for compensation and exemplary damages.
- The Tribunal has considered the extensive documentary evidence, oral submissions, and the procedural history of the matter, including earlier adjournments to ensure fairness and proper exchange of evidence. Background
- The parties entered into a tenancy agreement on 30 July 2025 for a tenancy commencing on 6 August 2024 for a fixed term ending on 1 August 2025. The weekly rent was $900 and a bond of $3,600 was paid. The tenancy ended on 20 October 2025.
- The landlord filed an application on 12 June 2025 seeking rent arrears and water charges. The tenants filed a cross-application raising a broad range of claims under the Act.
- At the hearing, the tenants accepted the rent arrears of $900. The water charges were no longer pursued and are treated as resolved.
- The remaining issues relate to the tenants’ cross-application and the landlord’s additional claims. The Parties’ Positions
- The landlord’s position is that it complied with its obligations under the Act. It says that maintenance issues were addressed when notified, that the property was either compliant with Healthy Homes Standards or exempt, and that the tenants obstructed access and engaged in unreasonable conduct. The landlord also seeks exemplary damages against the tenants.
- The tenants’ position is that the property was not provided in a reasonably clean or compliant state, that there were ongoing maintenance failures, that Healthy Homes obligations were not met, and that the landlord’s conduct interfered with their quiet enjoyment. They seek compensation of $13,700, exemplary damages, and refund of the bond. Key Issues for Determination
- The issues for determination are: • whether the landlord breached its obligations under section 45 of the Act, • whether there was non-compliance with Healthy Homes Standards, • whether the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment was breached, • whether unlawful entry occurred, • whether the tenancy agreement and rent practices breached the Act, • whether compensation is payable, and • whether exemplary damages should be awarded to either party. Relevant Law
- Section 40(1)(a) of the Act requires tenants to pay rent when due.
- Section 45(1)(a) and (b) requires landlords to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair.
- In Parker v Housing New Zealand Corporation [2015] NZHC 1330, the High Court confirmed that the obligation to maintain is a continuing one and is assessed against a standard of reasonableness having regard to the age and condition of the property.
- Section 45(1)(a) and (b) requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
- Section 45(1)(bb) requires compliance with Healthy Homes Standards.
- Section 38 protects the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment.
- Section 48 governs landlord entry and requires proper notice.
- Under section 77(2)(n), compensation may be awarded where a breach causes loss. The claimant must establish breach, causation, and loss.
- Exemplary damages under section 109 require proof of an intentional unlawful act listed in Schedule 1A.
- All matters are determined on the balance of probabilities Analysis Rent Arrears and Water Charges
- The tenants accepted the rent arrears of $900. The Tribunal is satisfied that this amount is owed. The water charges are treated as resolved and no order is made. Condition at Commencement
- The tenants allege that the premises were not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy.
- Section 45 requires premises to be provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness. The standard is one of reasonableness, not perfection.
- The Tribunal accepts that the property was not fully in a reasonably clean state at the start of the tenancy. In particular, the condition of the oven and certain areas fell below what would reasonably be expected.
- However, the deficiencies were limited in scope and did not render the premises uninhabitable.
- I find that there was a minor breach of section 45(1)(a) at the commencement of the tenancy, limited to cleanliness issues of a relatively minor nature. Repair and Maintenance Obligations
- The tenants raised multiple concerns regarding maintenance during the tenancy. The relevant question is whether the landlord failed to act reasonably once on notice of those issues.
- The obligation under section 45(1)(b) is not one of strict liability. The landlord must take reasonable steps within a reasonable timeframe.
- The evidence shows that the landlord arranged for repairs and engaged contractors. While delays occurred, the evidence does not establish that those delays were unreasonable in the circumstances.
- A significant factor is the absence of any formal 14-day notice to remedy issued by the tenants. While not strictly required, such notice is a key evidential tool to demonstrate an ongoing breach. In its absence, the Tribunal must rely on whether the landlord was clearly aware that issues remained unresolved.
- The evidence shows conflicting accounts and, in many instances, insufficient follow-up from the tenants. This makes it difficult to conclude that the landlord failed to act when on clear notice of continuing defects.
- Applying the balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to meet the statutory obligation to maintain the premises. Healthy Homes Standards
- The tenants allege that the property was not compliant, and that the landlord improperly relied on an exemption.
- The evidence shows inconsistent positions from the landlord, with reliance on an exemption while also undertaking compliance works. However, the tenants did not provide independent expert evidence establishing non-compliance to the required legal standard.
- While the Tribunal accepts that aspects of the property may have required improvement, the evidence does not establish a breach of Healthy Homes obligations sufficient to justify the remedies sought. Quiet Enjoyment
- The tenants rely on arrears notices, communications, and the general conduct of the landlord.
- The Tribunal accepts that the tenancy relationship became strained. However, the threshold for breach of quiet enjoyment is high and requires substantial interference.
- The issuing of arrears notices, even if at times inaccurate, and firm communications do not amount to a breach. There is no evidence of sustained harassment or conduct reaching the level required under section 38.
- No breach is established. Unlawful Entry
- The tenants allege that the landlord entered or attempted to enter without proper notice.
- The evidence shows that notices were issued and that access attempts were linked to maintenance concerns. The tenants refused access to the landlord personally but allowed tradespeople to enter.
- Given the ambiguity in the notices and the context of the dispute, the Tribunal is not satisfied that any refusal by the tenants was unreasonable or that any entry by the landlord was unlawful.
- No breach is established. Tenancy Agreement and Rent Practices
- The tenants allege inconsistencies in tenancy agreements and improper rent demands.
- While there were two agreements, the Tribunal is not satisfied that this resulted in a breach of the Act. The tenancy proceeded on agreed terms and the tenants remained in occupation.
- The rent payment issues arose from a mismatch between weekly contractual obligations and the tenants’ monthly payment practice. The Tribunal accepts that arrears notices were generated on a weekly accounting basis.
- No unlawful demand for rent is established. Landlord’s Additional Claims
- The landlord alleges that the tenants denied access, interfered with the landlord’s rights, and acted in bad faith.
- The Tribunal is not satisfied that the tenants’ conduct amounted to an unreasonable denial of access under section 48. The tenants permitted tradespeople to enter, and the refusal was limited to the landlord personally in disputed circumstances.
- The Tribunal is also not satisfied that the tenants’ communications amounted to unlawful interference. The conduct occurred in the context of asserting tenancy rights.
- Allegations relating to privacy or recording do not establish a breach under the Act.
- The landlord’s claims are therefore dismissed. Compensation
- The tenants seek substantial compensation.
- The Tribunal is satisfied that the premises were not fully reasonably clean at the commencement of the tenancy. This caused inconvenience and required the tenants to undertake additional cleaning.
- However, the evidence does not support the broader claims for rent reduction, loss of amenity at the level claimed, or emotional distress to the extent required for significant compensation.
- A modest award is appropriate.
- This case involved extensive allegations by both parties, but ultimately turned on the sufficiency of evidence. While the tenants experienced some issues, particularly at the commencement of the tenancy, the evidence does not establish the level of breach required to justify the substantial remedies sought. Exemplary Damages
- Neither party has established an intentional unlawful act under Schedule 1A.
- The threshold for exemplary damages is high and is not met in this case.
- All claims for exemplary damages are dismissed. Findings
- The Tribunal finds that the tenants owe rent arrears of $900. The tenants shall pay the landlord $900 for rent arrears.
- The Tribunal finds a limited breach by the landlord in relation to the cleanliness of the premises at the start of the tenancy. The landlord shall pay the tenants $300 as compensation for failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state at the commencement of the tenancy.
- The bond of $3,600 shall be applied as follows. The sum of $900 is to be paid to the landlord for rent arrears. The sum of $300 is to be paid to the tenants as compensation. The balance is to be refunded to the tenants.
- All other claims by both parties are dismissed. Filing fee
- No order is made for reimbursement of the filing fee, as neither party was wholly successful.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s109, s21, s27, s33, s38, s40(1), s44, s45, s45(1), s48, s58, s61, s77(2), s8
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5284802?
The tribunal order states: Tui Parepaoro Tokona, Whare Peke Raihe Tokona and Arthur Stuchbery to pay
How much money was awarded in case 5284802?
Compensation: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $900.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5284802?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5284802?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13474744-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.