Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356062 — State of repair at 31 Causeway Road, Surfdale, Waiheke Island 1081

Published 2 February 2026 · Application 5356062

Landlord favoured

State of repair
Smoke alarms
Cleanliness
Healthy homes
Exemplary damages

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Landlord favoured

From published order

Location

Waiheke Island

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

J Northwood

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Order

The tenant’s applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a tenant application. The tenants claim that the landlord breached the Healthy Homes Standards, failed to maintain the property, and failed to provide information on Healthy Homes Standards when asked. As a result of these claims, they seek compensation for rent paid, reimbursement of water and power bills, emotional harm, and exemplary damage for the landlord’s breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and /or the tenancy agreement. Relevant Legal Considerations:
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities mean more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary Damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional.
Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. Background:
This was a 10-month fixed term tenancy that commenced on 7 December 2024 and was to terminate on 19 October 2025. The tenants in their application claim that the tenancy agreement was oral, and the landlord had not provided a written copy of the tenancy agreement. During the tenancy, the tenants asked the landlord for a copy of the tenancy agreement but say the landlord only gave them the Healthy Homes Statement and Insurance information and not the tenancy agreement.
Despite signing a fixed term tenancy, the tenants claim that they told the landlord before signing the tenancy agreement, that they would need to terminate the tenancy early.
The tenants gave the landlord notice in July 2025 that they needed to leave the property early due to one of the tenants losing their job. The tenants were experiencing financial pressure and had a family member coming to visit for an extended period, which meant the house was too small, for three adults.
The landlord refused to accept the early release from the tenancy as the property was to be marketed for sale in November 2025 after the end of the fixed term in October 2025. The landlord would have lost months’ worth of rent if they released the tenants early from the tenancy agreement.
The tenants claim the landlord was dishonest by not honouring the verbal agreement they had and unreasonable by not allowing them to leave the tenancy early.
It would appear that prior to the tenants notice to leave early the relationship between the parties was amicable. The landlord claims that it was only after the dispute over the early termination that things between the parties deteriorated. Failure to provide written tenancy agreement:
Milagros Villamil and Axel Ojeda claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing and/or did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord stated that he provided a copy of the Tenancy Agreement prior to the start of the tenancy by hand delivering the documents to the tenants and a second copy in July 2025 when the tenants asked for another copy.
The tenancy agreement was dated before the start of the tenancy and so was clearly available for the tenants at the start of the tenancy. The only evidence I have that the landlord did not provide a tenancy agreement at the commencement of the tenancy, is from the tenant. This evidence is in direct opposition to the landlord’s evidence.
The tenants have not provided any proof that they were not provided with a copy of tenancy agreement, such as an email asking for a copy of the agreement at the start of the tenancy.
I do not find the landlord has committed an unlawful act and the tenants have failed to prove their claim. Breach of s45 RTA
Milagros Villamil and Axel Ojeda claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 ,comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Insulation:
The tenants claim that the landlord has breach their obligations regarding underfloor insulation. There is no dispute that during the tenancy the tenants advised the landlord that part of the bathroom underfloor insulation had fallen down. The landlord had the insulation reinstalled shortly after being made aware of the issue.
Milagros Villamil and Axel Ojeda claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1) (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
The tenants say that the lack of installation under the bathroom floor meant the property was not compliant with Healthy Homes Standards and caused them to have high power bills.
The landlord disputes these claims and has provided the Tribunal with the Healthy Homes Standards Compliance Statement that was attached to the tenancy agreement at the commencement of the tenancy. Furthermore, photos of the ceiling insulation and underfloor installation dated October 2025.
In addition, the landlord has provided a copy of a Healthy House Standards Report dated 9 January 2026.
A small area of the underfloor insulation had fallen down during this tenancy. Once the landlord was advised of this, he arranged a builder to remedy the problem. The landlord denies that the small area of missing underfloor insulation would have caused high power bills.
The Healthy Homes Report dated 6 January 2026 clearly shows that the property was fully complaint with all healthy home’s standards.
While there was a period of time a portion of the underfloor insulation had fallen down, I do not consider that a breach of a landlord’s obligations under the RTA. As soon as he was made aware of the issue it was remedied and is again fully compliant.
I do not find that the landlord has breached their obligations under the RTA. Power Bills:
The tenants claim compensation for the power bills they paid during the tenancy. They claim that the power bills were high and as a direct result of three pieces of floor insulation under the bathroom that had fallen down.
If a party is to claim compensation, they must be able to prove their claim. The tenants claim that they have incurred high power bills during the tenancy. However, no evidence has been provided to support this claim, such as copies of power bills, expert reports, comparisons with other properties, or other documentation linking the high charges to an issue with the property or the landlord’s actions. In the absence of any supporting evidence, the Tribunal is unable to make a finding in the tenant’s favour on this issue, and the claim is therefore dismissed. Garden maintenance and spider spraying:
The tenants say the landlord did not maintain the gardens as they were required to do under the tenancy agreement.
The property is a large semi-rural section which included lawn, native trees and shrubs and some hard landscaping. The tenants say the landlord rarely attended to the garden maintenance and they found it embarrassing to invite people to visit as a result.
The landlord provided a letter from Susan Morgan, one of the landlords to say that she attended the garden at the property with the paid gardener every 6 weeks to cut the punga and do weeding.
The landlord also provided a letter from the gardener, Rose Kaizer from Wildwood Horticulture LTD, who stated that from January to October 2025 her company was employed by the landlords to complete regular gardening and maintenance on the property. Their duties were to weed, replant as required, cut the punga and maintain the landscaping.
The landlord also provided invoices for work done on 8 and 14 January, 6 March, 4 June, 6 and 9 th July 4 and 18 th September 21 and 25 October, and 6 November 2025.
I find the landlord did maintain the rural property to a reasonable standard during the tenancy. Car damage:
The tenants claim that their car was damaged by some logs left alongside the driveway. The tenant provided a photo of a car parked near some wood laying on the ground. The landlord says that a tree fell during some bad weather, and he cut it up for firewood. The landlord said he left the cut-up wood some distance away from the car parking area.
The tenants have not provided evidence that the car was damaged by the tree at the property nor the cost of the repair to the car. I cannot make a finding in the tenant’s favour without the appropriate evidence. If the tenants are seeking compensation, they must also prove that they have suffered loss.
The tenant claims that their car was damaged by wood left at the property by the landlord. However, the tenant has not provided any evidence to support this claim, such as photographs of the damage, repair invoices, or quotes confirming the cost of repairs. Without proof of both the damage and the amount claimed, the Tribunal is unable to make an award in the tenant’s favour. The claim is therefore dismissed. Spiders:
The landlord annually sprayed the property for ants, as they were known pests at the property. However, the landlord claimed not to be aware of a spider issue.
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to spray the premises for spiders. However, there is no evidence of any agreement or obligation requiring the landlord to provide pest control services of this nature. In the absence of a specific term in the tenancy agreement, or any legal requirement for the landlord to spray for spiders, the Tribunal cannot uphold the tenants’ claim on this issue. Water pump:
There is no dispute that there were problems with the water pump during the tenancy. The tenants claim the landlord took too long to fix the water pump. The landlord claims that when they received notice that the water pump and the electronic controller was faulty and tripping, they sent a tradesperson to repair it immediately.
The landlord provided text messages between the parties to show that on 9 December 2024 the tenants text the landlord at 9.24pm saying there was no water coming out of the taps. The tenants said they had water until 30 minutes prior to texting. The landlord texted that he would get a plumber there in the morning and offered to come over start away to see if he could assist.
In addition, the water pump was “tripping” requiring the tenants to constantly reset the pump.
Over the next weeks, the plumber and landlord came to fix the water pump issues, by initially replacing the controller and then eventually replacing the whole water tank and controller.
The landlord provided copies of invoices dated 23 December 2024 for $642.00 to replace the controller unit and $1242.38 on 16 January 2025 to replace the entire water pump and controller.
The tenants seek compensation for a period when the water pump was not working properly. The evidence shows that, while the repairs took several weeks, the landlord engaged a plumber who attempted various solutions before ultimately replacing the water pump and remote. The Residential Tenancies Act requires landlords to attend to repairs within a reasonable time. In this case, although the process took longer than ideal, the landlord took active steps to resolve the issue once notified. Given that the landlord was responsive and worked to address the problem, and there is no evidence of significant loss or hardship suffered by the tenant, it is not appropriate to award compensation in these circumstances. The claim is therefore dismissed.
The tenants seek compensation for the landlords’ uses of water from their tank to water plants that had been put in the garden.
The landlord states that the water used on the plants was minimal. The landlords had offset the cost of any potential loss of water by not requiring the tenants to fill up the water tank at the end of the tenancy, as was required in the tenancy agreement. Therefore, the tenants have not suffered any financial loss that would require them to be compensated. Failure to provide information as requested:
Milagros Villamil and Axel Ojeda claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to provide information regarding the Healthy Homes Standard when they requested it.
The landlord stated that the tenants were given a Healthy Homes Standards Compliance certificate with the tenancy agreement and later when they requested another copy of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord engaged GPC Ltd Building Consultants to carry out a safe and sanitary report on 22 April 2025. The report concluded that the property is not dangerous or insanitary under the Building Act 2024 for occupation.
The landlord had the Healthy Homes Report completed in January 2026, which found the home fully complaint with Healthy Homes Standards.
The landlord did not provide the Safe and Sanity report during the tenancy, but the nature of that report is to comment of other matters and not healthy homes standards. The Healthy Homes report was not available until after the tenancy had terminated.
I do not find that the landlord has have committed an unlawful act. Conclusion:
Having considered the evidence, it appears that the tenants’ claims were brought in response to the landlord’s decision not to release them from the fixed term tenancy. Under section 60A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a fixed term tenancy cannot be ended early unless both parties agree or specific grounds under the Act are met. The tenants were also able to file a claim with the Tribunal seeking an early termination of the fixed term tenancy.
The landlord was entitled to require the tenants to comply with the terms of the fixed term agreement.
The claims made by the tenants are largely without merit and do not justify an award of compensation. While the tenants may have experienced emotional stress, this arose from circumstances that were not caused by any breach or unlawful act of the landlord. There is no basis under the Act to award compensation in these circumstances, and the claims are therefore dismissed.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

State of repair Smoke alarms Cleanliness Healthy homes Exemplary damages Waiheke Island

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s1, s13, s13(4), s2, s2016, s45, s45(1), s45(1A), s45(1AD), s60A, s9

Key findings

Dispute theme: state of repair
Dispute theme: smoke alarms
Dispute theme: cleaning

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5356062?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5356062?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356062?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356062?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13043936-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

This is a tenant application. The tenants claim that the landlord breached the Healthy Homes Standards, failed to maintain the property, and failed to provide information on Healthy Homes Standards when asked. As a result of these claims, they seek compensation for rent paid, reimbursement of water and power bills, emotional harm, and exemplary damage for the landlord’s breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and /or the tenancy agreement. Relevant Legal Considerations:

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.

That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities mean more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.

The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary Damages

The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.

Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional.

Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. Background:

This was a 10-month fixed term tenancy that commenced on 7 December 2024 and was to terminate on 19 October 2025. The tenants in their application claim that the tenancy agreement was oral, and the landlord had not provided a written copy of the tenancy agreement. During the tenancy, the tenants asked the landlord for a copy of the tenancy agreement but say the landlord only gave them the Healthy Homes Statement and Insurance information and not the tenancy agreement.

Despite signing a fixed term tenancy, the tenants claim that they told the landlord before signing the tenancy agreement, that they would need to terminate the tenancy early.

The tenants gave the landlord notice in July 2025 that they needed to leave the property early due to one of the tenants losing their job. The tenants were experiencing financial pressure and had a family member coming to visit for an extended period, which meant the house was too small, for three adults.

The landlord refused to accept the early release from the tenancy as the property was to be marketed for sale in November 2025 after the end of the fixed term in October 2025. The landlord would have lost months’ worth of rent if they released the tenants early from the tenancy agreement.

The tenants claim the landlord was dishonest by not honouring the verbal agreement they had and unreasonable by not allowing them to leave the tenancy early.

It would appear that prior to the tenants notice to leave early the relationship between the parties was amicable. The landlord claims that it was only after the dispute over the early termination that things between the parties deteriorated. Failure to provide written tenancy agreement:

Milagros Villamil and Axel Ojeda claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing and/or did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant.

A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord stated that he provided a copy of the Tenancy Agreement prior to the start of the tenancy by hand delivering the documents to the tenants and a second copy in July 2025 when the tenants asked for another copy.

The tenancy agreement was dated before the start of the tenancy and so was clearly available for the tenants at the start of the tenancy. The only evidence I have that the landlord did not provide a tenancy agreement at the commencement of the tenancy, is from the tenant. This evidence is in direct opposition to the landlord’s evidence.

The tenants have not provided any proof that they were not provided with a copy of tenancy agreement, such as an email asking for a copy of the agreement at the start of the tenancy.

I do not find the landlord has committed an unlawful act and the tenants have failed to prove their claim. Breach of s45 RTA

Milagros Villamil and Axel Ojeda claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 ,comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.

Breaching any of these 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Insulation:

The tenants claim that the landlord has breach their obligations regarding underfloor insulation. There is no dispute that during the tenancy the tenants advised the landlord that part of the bathroom underfloor insulation had fallen down. The landlord had the insulation reinstalled shortly after being made aware of the issue.

Milagros Villamil and Axel Ojeda claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1) (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.

From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.

Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.

The tenants say that the lack of installation under the bathroom floor meant the property was not compliant with Healthy Homes Standards and caused them to have high power bills.

The landlord disputes these claims and has provided the Tribunal with the Healthy Homes Standards Compliance Statement that was attached to the tenancy agreement at the commencement of the tenancy. Furthermore, photos of the ceiling insulation and underfloor installation dated October 2025.

In addition, the landlord has provided a copy of a Healthy House Standards Report dated 9 January 2026.

A small area of the underfloor insulation had fallen down during this tenancy. Once the landlord was advised of this, he arranged a builder to remedy the problem. The landlord denies that the small area of missing underfloor insulation would have caused high power bills.

The Healthy Homes Report dated 6 January 2026 clearly shows that the property was fully complaint with all healthy home’s standards.

While there was a period of time a portion of the underfloor insulation had fallen down, I do not consider that a breach of a landlord’s obligations under the RTA. As soon as he was made aware of the issue it was remedied and is again fully compliant.

I do not find that the landlord has breached their obligations under the RTA. Power Bills:

The tenants claim compensation for the power bills they paid during the tenancy. They claim that the power bills were high and as a direct result of three pieces of floor insulation under the bathroom that had fallen down.

If a party is to claim compensation, they must be able to prove their claim. The tenants claim that they have incurred high power bills during the tenancy. However, no evidence has been provided to support this claim, such as copies of power bills, expert reports, comparisons with other properties, or other documentation linking the high charges to an issue with the property or the landlord’s actions. In the absence of any supporting evidence, the Tribunal is unable to make a finding in the tenant’s favour on this issue, and the claim is therefore dismissed. Garden maintenance and spider spraying:

The tenants say the landlord did not maintain the gardens as they were required to do under the tenancy agreement.

The property is a large semi-rural section which included lawn, native trees and shrubs and some hard landscaping. The tenants say the landlord rarely attended to the garden maintenance and they found it embarrassing to invite people to visit as a result.

The landlord provided a letter from Susan Morgan, one of the landlords to say that she attended the garden at the property with the paid gardener every 6 weeks to cut the punga and do weeding.

The landlord also provided a letter from the gardener, Rose Kaizer from Wildwood Horticulture LTD, who stated that from January to October 2025 her company was employed by the landlords to complete regular gardening and maintenance on the property. Their duties were to weed, replant as required, cut the punga and maintain the landscaping.

The landlord also provided invoices for work done on 8 and 14 January, 6 March, 4 June, 6 and 9 th July 4 and 18 th September 21 and 25 October, and 6 November 2025.

I find the landlord did maintain the rural property to a reasonable standard during the tenancy. Car damage:

The tenants claim that their car was damaged by some logs left alongside the driveway. The tenant provided a photo of a car parked near some wood laying on the ground. The landlord says that a tree fell during some bad weather, and he cut it up for firewood. The landlord said he left the cut-up wood some distance away from the car parking area.

The tenants have not provided evidence that the car was damaged by the tree at the property nor the cost of the repair to the car. I cannot make a finding in the tenant’s favour without the appropriate evidence. If the tenants are seeking compensation, they must also prove that they have suffered loss.

The tenant claims that their car was damaged by wood left at the property by the landlord. However, the tenant has not provided any evidence to support this claim, such as photographs of the damage, repair invoices, or quotes confirming the cost of repairs. Without proof of both the damage and the amount claimed, the Tribunal is unable to make an award in the tenant’s favour. The claim is therefore dismissed. Spiders:

The landlord annually sprayed the property for ants, as they were known pests at the property. However, the landlord claimed not to be aware of a spider issue.

The tenants claim that the landlord failed to spray the premises for spiders. However, there is no evidence of any agreement or obligation requiring the landlord to provide pest control services of this nature. In the absence of a specific term in the tenancy agreement, or any legal requirement for the landlord to spray for spiders, the Tribunal cannot uphold the tenants’ claim on this issue. Water pump:

There is no dispute that there were problems with the water pump during the tenancy. The tenants claim the landlord took too long to fix the water pump. The landlord claims that when they received notice that the water pump and the electronic controller was faulty and tripping, they sent a tradesperson to repair it immediately.

The landlord provided text messages between the parties to show that on 9 December 2024 the tenants text the landlord at 9.24pm saying there was no water coming out of the taps. The tenants said they had water until 30 minutes prior to texting. The landlord texted that he would get a plumber there in the morning and offered to come over start away to see if he could assist.

In addition, the water pump was “tripping” requiring the tenants to constantly reset the pump.

Over the next weeks, the plumber and landlord came to fix the water pump issues, by initially replacing the controller and then eventually replacing the whole water tank and controller.

The landlord provided copies of invoices dated 23 December 2024 for $642.00 to replace the controller unit and $1242.38 on 16 January 2025 to replace the entire water pump and controller.

The tenants seek compensation for a period when the water pump was not working properly. The evidence shows that, while the repairs took several weeks, the landlord engaged a plumber who attempted various solutions before ultimately replacing the water pump and remote. The Residential Tenancies Act requires landlords to attend to repairs within a reasonable time. In this case, although the process took longer than ideal, the landlord took active steps to resolve the issue once notified. Given that the landlord was responsive and worked to address the problem, and there is no evidence of significant loss or hardship suffered by the tenant, it is not appropriate to award compensation in these circumstances. The claim is therefore dismissed.

The tenants seek compensation for the landlords’ uses of water from their tank to water plants that had been put in the garden.

The landlord states that the water used on the plants was minimal. The landlords had offset the cost of any potential loss of water by not requiring the tenants to fill up the water tank at the end of the tenancy, as was required in the tenancy agreement. Therefore, the tenants have not suffered any financial loss that would require them to be compensated. Failure to provide information as requested:

Milagros Villamil and Axel Ojeda claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.

Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant claims that the landlord failed to provide information regarding the Healthy Homes Standard when they requested it.

The landlord stated that the tenants were given a Healthy Homes Standards Compliance certificate with the tenancy agreement and later when they requested another copy of the tenancy agreement.

The landlord engaged GPC Ltd Building Consultants to carry out a safe and sanitary report on 22 April 2025. The report concluded that the property is not dangerous or insanitary under the Building Act 2024 for occupation.

The landlord had the Healthy Homes Report completed in January 2026, which found the home fully complaint with Healthy Homes Standards.

The landlord did not provide the Safe and Sanity report during the tenancy, but the nature of that report is to comment of other matters and not healthy homes standards. The Healthy Homes report was not available until after the tenancy had terminated.

I do not find that the landlord has have committed an unlawful act. Conclusion:

Having considered the evidence, it appears that the tenants’ claims were brought in response to the landlord’s decision not to release them from the fixed term tenancy. Under section 60A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a fixed term tenancy cannot be ended early unless both parties agree or specific grounds under the Act are met. The tenants were also able to file a claim with the Tribunal seeking an early termination of the fixed term tenancy.

The landlord was entitled to require the tenants to comply with the terms of the fixed term agreement.

The claims made by the tenants are largely without merit and do not justify an award of compensation. While the tenants may have experienced emotional stress, this arose from circumstances that were not caused by any breach or unlawful act of the landlord. There is no basis under the Act to award compensation in these circumstances, and the claims are therefore dismissed.