What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5382587?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5382587?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5382587?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5382587?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13007169-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5382587?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5382587?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5382587?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5382587?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13007169-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 8 Sunset Road, Unsworth Heights, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5382587 — Leaks

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background

The tenancy started on 27 January 2025. The tenants continue to reside at the tenancy address.

The premises consist of a two-level house with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms and a double garage.

The tenants claim that the landlord breached healthy home standards in respect of a leak in the kitchen.

The tenants also say that the landlord breached their obligations by allowing contractors to turn up without the required notice period.

The tenants also claim that the landlord breached the tenancy agreement by not allowing them access to a locked cupboard within the house.

The landlord confirmed that there is a current rent reduction in force. The landlord also paid the tenants approximately $1300.00 in September 2025 as compensation for issues raised by the tenants.

I held a hearing with both parties present today.

There has been a lot of communication between the parties by text and email. Both have provided documentary evidence and submissions. Additional documentary evidence was provided by the parties during the hearing today.

I heard oral evidence from the parties today. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Issues

The issues the Tribunal must decides are these: a. Did the landlord commit any unlawful acts? If so, Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages? b. Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? c. Has there been a breach of the tenancy agreement relating to the locked cupboard? Relevant law

Section 13 RTA sets out the requirements for a tenancy agreement.

Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them is the requirement that a landlord comply with the HHS.

A failure by a landlord to comply with these requirements is an unlawful act in each case – section 13A(1F) RTA and section 45(1A) RTA.

Section 48 (2) (d) sets out the notice requirements for a landlord’s right of entry to carry out maintenance and repairs.

Section 85 RTA provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.

Section 109 RTA sets out what must be established before the Tribunal can award exemplary damages.

Schedule 1A RTA sets out the maximum amounts that can be awarded by way of exemplary damages. Other legal considerations

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 means more likely than un-likely, 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.

The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.

In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: a. The nature of the breach; b. The duration of the breach; and c. The effect of the breach on the party.

In Birch, the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account:

The intention of the person;

The effect of the unlawful act;

The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and

The public interest.

Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: a. The intention of the person; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest. Discussion Healthy Home claims

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45, a landlord must, inter alia • Comply with the healthy home standards

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.

The tenant’s claim that there was a persistent leak which impacted the kitchen.

The tenants say that the water was coming in through the bedroom ranch slider and then ending up in the kitchen.

The landlord confirmed that temporary measures to fix the leak did not work. The leak was finally sorted on 9 December 2025 and was achieved by removing the door and sealing the holes in the waterproof membrane.

The tenant’s biggest frustration was the time taken to have the kitchen leak issue sorted. They say that the rent reduction was not offered until August but should have happened a lot earlier.

The tenants say that the leak first appeared on 9 May 2025.

The landlord says that the main delay getting the leak sorted was an attempt at a temporary solution.

The tenants say that the landlord sent at least 5 different contractors over the period of 5 or 6 months to try and fix the leak. The tenants were understandably frustrated.

A Healthy Home compliance certificate dated 8 March 2022 was provided with the application.

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the Healthy Homes Standards due to a leak at the premises. However, the evidence establishes that the landlord made numerous attempts to repair the leak once notified, demonstrating a reasonable response to the issue.

Furthermore, the premises were certified as fully compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards, as confirmed by the Healthy Homes compliance certificate dated 8 March 2022.

In the absence of evidence that the premises failed to meet the required standards or that the landlord failed to act reasonably to address the leak, I am not satisfied that there has been a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards.

The tenant’s claim is therefore declined. Unlawful entry by landlord

Nzubechi Precious Onwukwe and Danyon Gould claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.

A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant claims that the landlord sent two contractors to look at the roof. Once in late January 2025, and on another occasion on 18 August 2025.

The landlord says that the contractors turned up shortly after the tenants moved in. The landlord says that the contractors were not aware that the property was tenanted.

The tenants say that the second time the contractors turned up they were on the deck looking through the door. The tenant’s partner can come home from work and saw a ladder up to the roof.

The landlord accepts that on these two occasions the required notice period had not been provided to the tenants.

The tenant claims that the landlord’s contractor entered the premises without consent or notice, constituting unlawful entry under section 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. However, the evidence establishes that on both occasions, the contractor did not enter the interior of the premises but remained outside, inspecting the roof and, on one occasion, was observed on the deck with a ladder accessing the roof.

Section 48 applies to entry into the premises, which means the interior of the dwelling. Being on the exterior of the property, including the deck or roof, does not constitute entry into the premises for the purposes of section 48.

Accordingly, I am not satisfied that there has been an unlawful entry, and the tenant’s claim is declined. Locked cupboard

The tenants say that there was a locked cupboard within the house that they could not use. They say that they were disappointed that there was a lack of communication about the cupboard. The tenants say that this is a breach of the tenancy agreement.

The tenants claim that the landlord breached section 13 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by retaining a small, locked cupboard within the house for the storage of personal belongings, which was not available for the tenants’ use.

Section 13 of the Act sets out the requirements for the contents of a tenancy agreement, including a description of the premises.

There is no requirement under section 13 that the landlord must provide unrestricted access to every part of the premises, provided the tenancy agreement accurately describes the areas included in the tenancy and any exclusions are made clear to the tenants at the outset.

In this case, the presence of a small, locked cupboard used by the landlord does not, in itself, amount to a breach of section 13 or the tenancy agreement, particularly where the tenants have had exclusive possession and use of the remainder of the premises.

Accordingly, the tenants’ claim has not been established.

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenants applied for a name suppression order. The tenant’s application has been unsuccessful and therefore are not entitled to name suppression.

For the same reasons I do not reimburse the filing fee.

Reasons