What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5374545?

The tribunal order states: Nikau Hepi must pay Inspire Property Management Limited $237.86

How much money was awarded in case 5374545?

Cleaning: $133.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,942.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5374545?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5374545?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13112532-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5374545?

The tribunal order states: Nikau Hepi must pay Inspire Property Management Limited $237.86

How much money was awarded in case 5374545?

Cleaning: $133.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,942.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5374545?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5374545?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13112532-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 10, 7 Sydney Street, Kaikohe, Kaikohe 0405 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5374545 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5374545 — net $237.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,942.86		8. The landlord’s rent record establishes rent arrears of $1,942.86 to the end of the tenancy (14 October 2025).
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Cleaning at beginning of tenancy		$133.00	Cleaning at beginning of tenancy
Total award	$1,970.86	$133.00
Net award	$237.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$237.86

Order

Nikau Hepi must pay Inspire Property Management Limited $237.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (BN-00117421) to Inspire Property Management Limited immediately.

Reasons

Background

This was a boarding house tenancy. The premises were previously operated as a motel. There are 10 units, with shared facilities (laundry).
Mr Hepi’s tenancy began on 10 July 2025. The tenancy ended on 14 October 2025 pursuant to a 28-day termination notice issued by the landlord.
The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears.
The tenant’s application seeks compensation for cleaning at the beginning of the tenancy, and compensation / exemplary damages for failure to meet healthy homes standards, failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and interference with reasonable peace comfort and privacy.
The applications were scheduled for a hearing at the Kaikohe Court on 12 February 2026. Notice of the hearing was sent to both parties on 20 January 2026.
Ms Kehoe attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. There was no appearance by Mr Hepi. The Registrar attempted to contact Mr Hepi by phone at the start time of 9.30am and again at 9.45am. The calls were not answered. Mr Hepi had not requested an adjournment.
The hearing proceeded in Mr Hepi’s absence. 1 Landlord application Rent arrears
The landlord’s rent record establishes rent arrears of $1,942.86 to the end of the tenancy (14 October 2025). Mr Hepi made no rent payments after 4 September 2025.
The claim for rent arrears is proven. Tenant application Cleaning at the beginning of the tenancy
The landlord accepted the tenant’s claim for $133.00 for cleaning at the beginning of the tenancy. Faulty refrigerator
Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 2
The unit came with a small fridge. 1 Section 92 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 45(1)(b) RTA
On 17 July, Megan Hepi (Mr Hepi’s mother) sent Ms Kehoe an email stating “I also noticed that the fridge is freezing all food and spoiling it – it doesn’t appear to be functioning properly”
Ms Kehoe replied the same day suggesting that Mr Hepi check the settings and ensure that he did not have items against the back of the fridge, so that it had airflow.
Ms Kehoe did not hear any more until August, when she was told that the problem with the fridge was persisting. She then ordered a replacement fridge, which was put in the premises on 20 August 2025.
The landlord’s maintenance obligation is not a guarantee that there will be no problems or issues with the property during the tenancy. The landlord’s duty is to respond promptly and appropriately to maintenance issues that are brought to their attention. 3
My finding is that the landlord met that duty in this instance. Ms Kehoe responded promptly and appropriately to the initial complaint. When she heard nothing further, she reasonably assumed that the problem was resolved. When the tenant raised the issue again, she promptly arranged for a replacement fridge. “Unhealthy living conditions & breach of healthy homes standards”
Mr Hepi’s written submission lists three issues under this heading: a. Excessive mould. b. Inadequate ventilation. c. Unsafe deck.
Mr Hepi states: “the exterior of the studio was covered in mould and significant mould was present in the bathroom”.
The tenant’s application includes some photographs of the exterior, and the landlord also provided a copy of the entry inspection report which includes photographs of the exterior.
The photographs show some discolouration / aging of the exterior paintwork, but it does not appear to be mould.
The photographs show some minor and superficial mould development on the ceiling in the bathroom, consistent with the age and construction of the premises. 3 Barfoot & Thompson v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-0041762, 7 November 2007, Collins v Professionals Hut City DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431
The claim of ‘excessive mould’ is not proven. Inadequate ventilation
Mr Hepi states that the “old, tiny extractor fan” in the bathroom failed to meet the healthy homes standard for ventilation.
The bathroom ventilation fan was installed in February 2025.
The landlord had an independent contractor carry out a Healthy Homes assessment in February 2025. I was provided with a copy of their report. The report states that the unit is compliant with the healthy homes standards in all respects, including ventilation.
It is not proven that the fan in the bathroom failed to meet the healthy homes standards. ` Unsafe deck
Mr Hepi states that the deck was covered in slippery slime, making it unsafe and unusable.
Megan Hepi sent Ms Kehoe an email about this problem on 17 July.
Ms Kehoe was aware of it, and on 2 July she made a request to a contractor to waterblast the deck.
There were some delays with that contractor, and Ms Kehoe ultimately instructed another contractor, who carried out the work on 20 August 2025.
I am satisfied that Ms Kehoe acted promptly and appropriately. The delay caused by the contractor was relatively minor and does not warrant an award of compensation to the tenant. “Emotional distress, breach of quiet enjoyment, privacy and bullying behaviour”
Mr Hepi raised the following issues under this heading: a. Unwarranted eviction letters. b. Unreasonable stance on late payment. c. Derogatory comments about tenants. d. Breach of privacy / surveillance. e. Bullying conduct and lack of compassion. Unwarranted eviction letters
The submission states: “Nikau received constant, baseless eviction letters, creating immense stress”.
A landlord can terminate a boarding house tenancy by giving the tenant 28- days’ notice in writing. 4 The landlord is not required to give a reason for the notice.
The landlord issued a 28-day notice on 15 August 2025, and then withdrew that notice on 18 August. Ms Kehoe said that she withdrew the notice on the basis of assurances made about rent payments.
The landlord issued a second 28-day notice on 15 September 2025, and the tenancy terminated on 14 October 2025 pursuant to that notice.
The landlord was legally entitled to issue a 28-day notice at any time to end the tenancy.
There is no breach of the landlord’s legal duty. Unreasonable stance on late payment
The submission states: “A payment was deemed late solely because the due date fell on a different day of the week from Nikau’s pay day”.
The tenancy began on Friday 11 July 2025.
Mr Hepi entered into a binding contract that obliged him to pay rent weekly every Friday.
If he paid after Friday, his rent was late, and he was in breach of the agreement.
Landlords are not obliged to be lenient about late rent payments. Derogatory comments
It is alleged that Ms Kehoe made comments about other tenants that Mr Hepi overheard.
Ms Kehoe denies making the comments, and I have no independent evidence about this.
It is not proven that Ms Kehoe made the comments.
Even if the allegation was proven, this would not amount to an unreasonable interference with the Mr Hepi’s peace comfort and privacy. The allegation is relatively trivial, and well below the legal threshold of what amounts to harassment. 4 Section 66U(1)(d) RTA Surveillance
There are three CCTV cameras on site. Two face the vehicle entrance and one faces the car parking area.
The submission states: “A fellow tenant explicitly stated that the surveillance cameras were installed ‘for her’, raising serious concerns about Nikau’s privacy”.
The implication seems to be that this other tenant has access to recordings from the cameras.
There is no evidence to support the allegation about what the other tenant said.
Even if it was proven that the other tenant made such a claim, there is no evidence to show that it is true. The idea that another tenant has access to the CCTV recordings is counter-intuitive. The CCTV cameras are for the benefit of the owner, and there is no reason to give one tenant access to the recordings.
Even if that could be proven, it would not (in my view) amount to an unreasonable breach of Mr Hepi’s privacy. The CCTV cameras do not capture Mr Hepi’s unit. They capture the driveway and carpark, which are areas that any tenant in the complex can observe 24 hours a day if they wish to. Bullying and lack of compassion
The statement alleges that Ms Kehoe said that she had “no compassion or time for it” when Mr Hepi attempted to communicate with her.
I was provided with copies of all of the emails and text messages between Ms Kehoe and Mr Hepi / Megan Hepi. Ms Kehoe had very little communication with Mr Hepi during the tenancy. Most of the communication was with Megan.
There is nothing remotely bullying or inappropriate in the written communication.
It is unlawful for a landlord to harass a tenant. 5 It is not unlawful for a landlord to not show compassion or to not be “supportive”.
This part of the claim is not proven. Outcome, filing fee, bond
The landlord has been successful in this application, and I must also award the landlord the filing fee of $28.00. 6 5 Section 39(3) RTA
Mr Hepi is to pay the landlord $1,970.86, being rent arrears plus the filing fee, less compensation for cleaning.
Part of this will be paid by the bond, which will be released to the landlord.
The tenant sought name suppression. The Tribunal must grant name suppression on request to any party that is substantially successful in the proceedings. 7 The tenant was not substantially successful in this instance. Name suppression is not granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5374545 — net $237.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,942.86		8. The landlord’s rent record establishes rent arrears of $1,942.86 to the end of the tenancy (14 October 2025).
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Cleaning at beginning of tenancy		$133.00	Cleaning at beginning of tenancy
Total award	$1,970.86	$133.00
Net award	$237.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$237.86

Order

Nikau Hepi must pay Inspire Property Management Limited $237.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (BN-00117421) to Inspire Property Management Limited immediately.

Reasons

Background

This was a boarding house tenancy. The premises were previously operated as a motel. There are 10 units, with shared facilities (laundry).
Mr Hepi’s tenancy began on 10 July 2025. The tenancy ended on 14 October 2025 pursuant to a 28-day termination notice issued by the landlord.
The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears.
The tenant’s application seeks compensation for cleaning at the beginning of the tenancy, and compensation / exemplary damages for failure to meet healthy homes standards, failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and interference with reasonable peace comfort and privacy.
The applications were scheduled for a hearing at the Kaikohe Court on 12 February 2026. Notice of the hearing was sent to both parties on 20 January 2026.
Ms Kehoe attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. There was no appearance by Mr Hepi. The Registrar attempted to contact Mr Hepi by phone at the start time of 9.30am and again at 9.45am. The calls were not answered. Mr Hepi had not requested an adjournment.
The hearing proceeded in Mr Hepi’s absence. 1 Landlord application Rent arrears
The landlord’s rent record establishes rent arrears of $1,942.86 to the end of the tenancy (14 October 2025). Mr Hepi made no rent payments after 4 September 2025.
The claim for rent arrears is proven. Tenant application Cleaning at the beginning of the tenancy
The landlord accepted the tenant’s claim for $133.00 for cleaning at the beginning of the tenancy. Faulty refrigerator
Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 2
The unit came with a small fridge. 1 Section 92 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 45(1)(b) RTA
On 17 July, Megan Hepi (Mr Hepi’s mother) sent Ms Kehoe an email stating “I also noticed that the fridge is freezing all food and spoiling it – it doesn’t appear to be functioning properly”
Ms Kehoe replied the same day suggesting that Mr Hepi check the settings and ensure that he did not have items against the back of the fridge, so that it had airflow.
Ms Kehoe did not hear any more until August, when she was told that the problem with the fridge was persisting. She then ordered a replacement fridge, which was put in the premises on 20 August 2025.
The landlord’s maintenance obligation is not a guarantee that there will be no problems or issues with the property during the tenancy. The landlord’s duty is to respond promptly and appropriately to maintenance issues that are brought to their attention. 3
My finding is that the landlord met that duty in this instance. Ms Kehoe responded promptly and appropriately to the initial complaint. When she heard nothing further, she reasonably assumed that the problem was resolved. When the tenant raised the issue again, she promptly arranged for a replacement fridge. “Unhealthy living conditions & breach of healthy homes standards”
Mr Hepi’s written submission lists three issues under this heading: a. Excessive mould. b. Inadequate ventilation. c. Unsafe deck.
Mr Hepi states: “the exterior of the studio was covered in mould and significant mould was present in the bathroom”.
The tenant’s application includes some photographs of the exterior, and the landlord also provided a copy of the entry inspection report which includes photographs of the exterior.
The photographs show some discolouration / aging of the exterior paintwork, but it does not appear to be mould.
The photographs show some minor and superficial mould development on the ceiling in the bathroom, consistent with the age and construction of the premises. 3 Barfoot & Thompson v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-0041762, 7 November 2007, Collins v Professionals Hut City DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431
The claim of ‘excessive mould’ is not proven. Inadequate ventilation
Mr Hepi states that the “old, tiny extractor fan” in the bathroom failed to meet the healthy homes standard for ventilation.
The bathroom ventilation fan was installed in February 2025.
The landlord had an independent contractor carry out a Healthy Homes assessment in February 2025. I was provided with a copy of their report. The report states that the unit is compliant with the healthy homes standards in all respects, including ventilation.
It is not proven that the fan in the bathroom failed to meet the healthy homes standards. ` Unsafe deck
Mr Hepi states that the deck was covered in slippery slime, making it unsafe and unusable.
Megan Hepi sent Ms Kehoe an email about this problem on 17 July.
Ms Kehoe was aware of it, and on 2 July she made a request to a contractor to waterblast the deck.
There were some delays with that contractor, and Ms Kehoe ultimately instructed another contractor, who carried out the work on 20 August 2025.
I am satisfied that Ms Kehoe acted promptly and appropriately. The delay caused by the contractor was relatively minor and does not warrant an award of compensation to the tenant. “Emotional distress, breach of quiet enjoyment, privacy and bullying behaviour”
Mr Hepi raised the following issues under this heading: a. Unwarranted eviction letters. b. Unreasonable stance on late payment. c. Derogatory comments about tenants. d. Breach of privacy / surveillance. e. Bullying conduct and lack of compassion. Unwarranted eviction letters
The submission states: “Nikau received constant, baseless eviction letters, creating immense stress”.
A landlord can terminate a boarding house tenancy by giving the tenant 28- days’ notice in writing. 4 The landlord is not required to give a reason for the notice.
The landlord issued a 28-day notice on 15 August 2025, and then withdrew that notice on 18 August. Ms Kehoe said that she withdrew the notice on the basis of assurances made about rent payments.
The landlord issued a second 28-day notice on 15 September 2025, and the tenancy terminated on 14 October 2025 pursuant to that notice.
The landlord was legally entitled to issue a 28-day notice at any time to end the tenancy.
There is no breach of the landlord’s legal duty. Unreasonable stance on late payment
The submission states: “A payment was deemed late solely because the due date fell on a different day of the week from Nikau’s pay day”.
The tenancy began on Friday 11 July 2025.
Mr Hepi entered into a binding contract that obliged him to pay rent weekly every Friday.
If he paid after Friday, his rent was late, and he was in breach of the agreement.
Landlords are not obliged to be lenient about late rent payments. Derogatory comments
It is alleged that Ms Kehoe made comments about other tenants that Mr Hepi overheard.
Ms Kehoe denies making the comments, and I have no independent evidence about this.
It is not proven that Ms Kehoe made the comments.
Even if the allegation was proven, this would not amount to an unreasonable interference with the Mr Hepi’s peace comfort and privacy. The allegation is relatively trivial, and well below the legal threshold of what amounts to harassment. 4 Section 66U(1)(d) RTA Surveillance
There are three CCTV cameras on site. Two face the vehicle entrance and one faces the car parking area.
The submission states: “A fellow tenant explicitly stated that the surveillance cameras were installed ‘for her’, raising serious concerns about Nikau’s privacy”.
The implication seems to be that this other tenant has access to recordings from the cameras.
There is no evidence to support the allegation about what the other tenant said.
Even if it was proven that the other tenant made such a claim, there is no evidence to show that it is true. The idea that another tenant has access to the CCTV recordings is counter-intuitive. The CCTV cameras are for the benefit of the owner, and there is no reason to give one tenant access to the recordings.
Even if that could be proven, it would not (in my view) amount to an unreasonable breach of Mr Hepi’s privacy. The CCTV cameras do not capture Mr Hepi’s unit. They capture the driveway and carpark, which are areas that any tenant in the complex can observe 24 hours a day if they wish to. Bullying and lack of compassion
The statement alleges that Ms Kehoe said that she had “no compassion or time for it” when Mr Hepi attempted to communicate with her.
I was provided with copies of all of the emails and text messages between Ms Kehoe and Mr Hepi / Megan Hepi. Ms Kehoe had very little communication with Mr Hepi during the tenancy. Most of the communication was with Megan.
There is nothing remotely bullying or inappropriate in the written communication.
It is unlawful for a landlord to harass a tenant. 5 It is not unlawful for a landlord to not show compassion or to not be “supportive”.
This part of the claim is not proven. Outcome, filing fee, bond
The landlord has been successful in this application, and I must also award the landlord the filing fee of $28.00. 6 5 Section 39(3) RTA
Mr Hepi is to pay the landlord $1,970.86, being rent arrears plus the filing fee, less compensation for cleaning.
Part of this will be paid by the bond, which will be released to the landlord.
The tenant sought name suppression. The Tribunal must grant name suppression on request to any party that is substantially successful in the proceedings. 7 The tenant was not substantially successful in this instance. Name suppression is not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5374545 — Rent arrears at Unit 10, 7 Sydney Street, Kaikohe, Kaikohe 0405

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5374545 — Rent arrears at Unit 10, 7 Sydney Street, Kaikohe, Kaikohe 0405

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