What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5344245?

The tribunal order states: Aisha Andrews-Cheung Tau and Harry Cheung Tau must pay Lorretta Hart

How much money was awarded in case 5344245?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $1,080.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5344245?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5344245?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13275120-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5344245?

The tribunal order states: Aisha Andrews-Cheung Tau and Harry Cheung Tau must pay Lorretta Hart

How much money was awarded in case 5344245?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $1,080.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5344245?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5344245?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13275120-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

117 Metcalfe Road, Ranui, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5344245 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5344245 — net $1,108.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$1,080.00	Loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,108.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,108.00

Order

Aisha Andrews-Cheung Tau and Harry Cheung Tau must pay Lorretta Hart $1,108.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 12 March 2026.
This tenancy commenced in November 2023 (the exact start date is not agreed) and ended on 10 October 2025.
The parties were friends at the beginning of the tenancy, but the friendship deteriorated toward the end.
There is no tenancy agreement, but it was agreed that the rent was $595.00 per week and no bond was sought or paid.
The tenant applied for a work order, compensation due to loss of amenity, a Healthy Homes claim and exemplary damages. Loss of amenity
The issues relating to loss of amenity were the garage; which the landlord had stored belongings in, the landlord’s car; that remained at the tenancy for the duration and part of the fence; which was removed when a tree was cut down.
The tenant said that she had asked the landlord to clear the garage and remove the car in writing and in person when she saw them. In the documents submitted there is text communication between the parties in May 2024 concerning these matters. The full message trail has not been provided so I am not sure what if any response was received from the landlord. I note that at the hearing the tenant said that there was no reply received.
Although the tenant had asked for the garage to be cleared, and the to be car removed there were times where she appeared to happily agree to the landlord coming over to retrieve items from the garage and for someone to attend the property to work on the car.
The next written communication produced was in September 2025. It was only a month before the end of the tenancy that the tenant formalised her request. It appears that by this stage relations between the parties had significantly deteriorated.
The tenant did not provide any evidence that these issues were followed up after 2024 until September 2025 therefore it may be reasonable for the landlord to assume the issue had been resolved or was no longer a concern.
Rather than award an amount for the period that the garage was not cleared, or the car was not removed, the circumstances justify a fair and reasonable overall compensation, rather than a strict calculation. I have awarded compensation for loss of amenity of $250.00 for each of the garage and the car.
The tree was removed from the property on 6 March 2025. Part of the fence was also removed. The fence is located at the front of the property along the side boundary. From 6 March 2025 until 28 September 2025 that part of the fence was missing.
On 7 June 2025 the tenant had a security scare when someone had entered the property through the area where the fencing was missing. The tenant messaged the landlord about this incident.
It was not until 28 September 2025 when the landlord took steps and provided a temporary fence. The tenant said that it still meant that passersby could see into the property but I am satisfied that this provided an adequate security measure for the tenant.
I have calculated the compensation for loss of amenity in relation to the fence for the 29 weeks (from 6 March 2025 to 28 September 2025) at $20.00 per week which amounts to $580.00. Healthy Homes claim
The tenant applied in respect of a claim concerning the Healthy Homes standards. From the evidence produced it is evident that the premises were non-compliant in relation to the Healthy Homes standards in respect of the heating (where there must be a fixed heater in the living room), the draught stopping (where there is an open fireplace it must be closed off or the chimney blocked to prevent draughts) and ventilation (kitchens must have an extractor fan or rangehood).
The tenant raised the issue of whether the property was complaint with the Healthy Homes standards in September 2025. The tenant said that she was verbally told at the beginning of the tenancy that the premises would be compliant after the installation of a new heat pump. The landlord seemed to think because there was no tenancy agreement the landlord was not required to comply with the Healthy Homes standards or supply what she referred to as a a rental certificate.
At the hearing the landlord said that she was not aware that they needed to comply with the Healthy Homes standards.
The tenant did not produce any evidence to support the claim in respect of how or if the non-compliance had any impact on her time there.
A landlord’s lack of awareness of the Healthy Homes standards does not excuse non-compliance. While I consider that the landlord has breached the Healthy Homes standards for exemplary damages there must be proof of intentional conduct. There must also be evidence of the effect of the unlawful act. At the date of hearing the tenancy has ended and the landlord is occupying the premises and therefore there is no requirement to comply with the standards.
In the circumstances, exemplary damages in respect of the Healthy Homes standards is not appropriate. The claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages
The tenant claimed for exemplary damages in respect of not having exclusive possession (garage and car parking) and breaching her quiet enjoyment. These issues have been addressed above with the compensation granted.
The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Work order
The tenant had filed the application before the tenancy had ended. She sought a work order to reinstate the fence. As the tenancy has ended a work order is no longer required. The application for a work order is dismissed.
Because Lorretta Hart has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5344245 — net $1,108.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$1,080.00	Loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,108.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,108.00

Order

Aisha Andrews-Cheung Tau and Harry Cheung Tau must pay Lorretta Hart $1,108.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 12 March 2026.
This tenancy commenced in November 2023 (the exact start date is not agreed) and ended on 10 October 2025.
The parties were friends at the beginning of the tenancy, but the friendship deteriorated toward the end.
There is no tenancy agreement, but it was agreed that the rent was $595.00 per week and no bond was sought or paid.
The tenant applied for a work order, compensation due to loss of amenity, a Healthy Homes claim and exemplary damages. Loss of amenity
The issues relating to loss of amenity were the garage; which the landlord had stored belongings in, the landlord’s car; that remained at the tenancy for the duration and part of the fence; which was removed when a tree was cut down.
The tenant said that she had asked the landlord to clear the garage and remove the car in writing and in person when she saw them. In the documents submitted there is text communication between the parties in May 2024 concerning these matters. The full message trail has not been provided so I am not sure what if any response was received from the landlord. I note that at the hearing the tenant said that there was no reply received.
Although the tenant had asked for the garage to be cleared, and the to be car removed there were times where she appeared to happily agree to the landlord coming over to retrieve items from the garage and for someone to attend the property to work on the car.
The next written communication produced was in September 2025. It was only a month before the end of the tenancy that the tenant formalised her request. It appears that by this stage relations between the parties had significantly deteriorated.
The tenant did not provide any evidence that these issues were followed up after 2024 until September 2025 therefore it may be reasonable for the landlord to assume the issue had been resolved or was no longer a concern.
Rather than award an amount for the period that the garage was not cleared, or the car was not removed, the circumstances justify a fair and reasonable overall compensation, rather than a strict calculation. I have awarded compensation for loss of amenity of $250.00 for each of the garage and the car.
The tree was removed from the property on 6 March 2025. Part of the fence was also removed. The fence is located at the front of the property along the side boundary. From 6 March 2025 until 28 September 2025 that part of the fence was missing.
On 7 June 2025 the tenant had a security scare when someone had entered the property through the area where the fencing was missing. The tenant messaged the landlord about this incident.
It was not until 28 September 2025 when the landlord took steps and provided a temporary fence. The tenant said that it still meant that passersby could see into the property but I am satisfied that this provided an adequate security measure for the tenant.
I have calculated the compensation for loss of amenity in relation to the fence for the 29 weeks (from 6 March 2025 to 28 September 2025) at $20.00 per week which amounts to $580.00. Healthy Homes claim
The tenant applied in respect of a claim concerning the Healthy Homes standards. From the evidence produced it is evident that the premises were non-compliant in relation to the Healthy Homes standards in respect of the heating (where there must be a fixed heater in the living room), the draught stopping (where there is an open fireplace it must be closed off or the chimney blocked to prevent draughts) and ventilation (kitchens must have an extractor fan or rangehood).
The tenant raised the issue of whether the property was complaint with the Healthy Homes standards in September 2025. The tenant said that she was verbally told at the beginning of the tenancy that the premises would be compliant after the installation of a new heat pump. The landlord seemed to think because there was no tenancy agreement the landlord was not required to comply with the Healthy Homes standards or supply what she referred to as a a rental certificate.
At the hearing the landlord said that she was not aware that they needed to comply with the Healthy Homes standards.
The tenant did not produce any evidence to support the claim in respect of how or if the non-compliance had any impact on her time there.
A landlord’s lack of awareness of the Healthy Homes standards does not excuse non-compliance. While I consider that the landlord has breached the Healthy Homes standards for exemplary damages there must be proof of intentional conduct. There must also be evidence of the effect of the unlawful act. At the date of hearing the tenancy has ended and the landlord is occupying the premises and therefore there is no requirement to comply with the standards.
In the circumstances, exemplary damages in respect of the Healthy Homes standards is not appropriate. The claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages
The tenant claimed for exemplary damages in respect of not having exclusive possession (garage and car parking) and breaching her quiet enjoyment. These issues have been addressed above with the compensation granted.
The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Work order
The tenant had filed the application before the tenancy had ended. She sought a work order to reinstate the fence. As the tenancy has ended a work order is no longer required. The application for a work order is dismissed.
Because Lorretta Hart has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5344245 — Tenancy dispute at 117 Metcalfe Road, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5344245 — Tenancy dispute at 117 Metcalfe Road, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions