What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5419468?

The tribunal order states: McKenzie Wynanda Karren Zwart Middleton to pay Coastal Holiday Homes

How much money was awarded in case 5419468?

Compensation: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Power: $193.23 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5419468?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5419468?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13727092-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5419468?

The tribunal order states: McKenzie Wynanda Karren Zwart Middleton to pay Coastal Holiday Homes

How much money was awarded in case 5419468?

Compensation: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Power: $193.23 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5419468?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5419468?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13727092-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

133 Pukenui Road, Ngunguru, RD 3, Whangarei 0173, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5419468 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5419468 — net $1,293.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 December 2025	$1,600.00		Rent arrears to 12 December 2025
Power	$193.23		The claim for power costs is proven. Rubbish removal
Rubbish removal	$150.00		Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		77. Having regard to these factors I will award exemplary damages of $150.00.
Compensation: General damages for stress and		$500.00	General damages for stress and
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry		$150.00	Unlawful entry
Compensation		$28.00	Compensation
Total award	$1,971.23	$678.00
Net award	$1,293.23
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,293.23

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5419468 — net $1,293.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 December 2025	$1,600.00		Rent arrears to 12 December 2025
Power	$193.23		The claim for power costs is proven. Rubbish removal
Rubbish removal	$150.00		Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		77. Having regard to these factors I will award exemplary damages of $150.00.
Compensation: General damages for stress and		$500.00	General damages for stress and
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry		$150.00	Unlawful entry
Compensation		$28.00	Compensation
Total award	$1,971.23	$678.00
Net award	$1,293.23
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,293.23

Order

McKenzie Wynanda Karren Zwart Middleton to pay Coastal Holiday Homes Limited $1,293.23 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (BN-00156471) as follows: i. $1,293.23 to Coastal Holiday Homes Ltd ii. $906.77 to McKenzie Wynanda Karren Zwart Middleton.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 6 September 2025 and ended by consent on 7 January 2026.
The landlord filed a Tenancy Tribunal application on 22 December 2025. The application sought rent arrears, power costs, and rubbish removal / cleaning costs.
The tenant filed a cross-application on 27 December 2025. The application raised issues relating to the deck, failure of a fridge, rodents, and unlawful entry.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 10 June 2026. Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Kidd represented the landlord. Landlord application Rent arrears
Ms Kidd’s rent record shows rent arrears of $3,742.86 to 7 January 2026.
Ms Middleton did not dispute the accuracy of the landlord’s rent record.
For the reasons set out below, my finding is that the tenant’s obligation to pay rent ended on 12 December 2025.
There are proven rent arrears of $1,700.00 to 12 December 2025. Power
Tenants are liable for outgoings that they consume during the tenancy. 1
The premises are on a sub-meter for power.
The tenancy began on 6 September 2025. On 19 November 2025, the landlord calculated power use to that date ($192.23) and requested payment from the tenant.
Ms Middleton did not dispute that she is obliged to pay for power. Ms Middleton’s concern was that that landlord
The District Court has held that there is an implied term in every tenancy agreement that the landlord will provide outgoings invoices to tenants “at regular intervals” so that tenants do not face large lump sum bills for accumulated outgoings. 2 In that District Court case, the landlord did not issue any invoices for water use during the tenancy, then sought payment at the end 1 Section 39(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Woollams v Simpson [2006] RTHNZ 2 of the tenancy for nearly three years of water use totalling $2,299.55. The District Court held that this was not acceptable, and required the tenant to pay for four months of water use only, totalling $215.40.
In this instance landlord read the meter and provided an invoice after approximately two months, and the amount owed for that period is $192.23.
In my view this does not to a breach of the landlord’s duty to provide invoices at “regular intervals”. Although monthly invoices would be preferable, two monthly is not unreasonable.
Ms Kidd confirmed that she is not seeking power costs beyond 19 November 2025.
The claim for power costs is proven. Rubbish removal
Tenants must remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. 3
Ms Kidd provided photographs showing rubbish at the property in mid- December 2025, but only one photograph from the end of the tenancy in January 2026.
The end of tenancy photograph shows the side-on view of a loaded trailer.
Ms Middleton said that she recognised some of the items on the trailer as hers, but others (such as a large cupboard / wardrobe door) were on the property when she moved in.
It is clear (and not disputed) that Ms Middleton left some items behind, but it is appropriate to take a conservative approach to compensation given that the landlord has provided no exit inspection report, only one relevant photograph, and no evidence of costs.
I will award $150.00 Tenant application Background
Ms Middleton moved into the property with her young son, and she was pregnant for the period of the tenancy.
In early November, Ms Middleton had to travel to the South Island due to a family emergency. She was away from the property for five weeks. 3 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA
On the day that she returned she discovered that the power was out, and it had clearly been out for some time. The contents of the fridge / freezer had rotted. There was an overpowering smell of rotten food and rat urine in the house. The same day, her partner (who was holding her son at the time) went through one of the decks on the house. These issues are discussed in more detail below.
Ms Middleton left the house that day and did not live there again until the tenancy ended, returning only to clean and remove rubbish. Deck & foundations
The house is on a bank and is surrounded by bush. There is a deck that extends from the lounge / living area, and then a second, lower level, deck. Ms Kidd referred to the second deck as the “courtyard deck”.
On 12 December 2025, the day that Ms Middleton returned from the South Island, her partner (Mr Topia) was on the courtyard deck. He was walking on the deck holding their young son. Mr Topia gave evidence at the hearing on 10 June. He said that he heard a noise from the deck, then the deck gave way. He was able to drop / throw his child to the side as he fell.
The child sustained a cut to his forehead and his toe. Ms Middleton said that her son still has a scar on his forehead from the incident.
Ms Middleton provided photographs showing the snapped boards and large hole in the deck. It is very fortunate that Mr Topia did not fall through the deck completely.
As noted above, Ms Middleton left the property. The next day, she informed Ms Kidd about the deck and other issues.
Ms Kidd arranged for a contractor to inspect the deck and carry out temporary ‘make safe’ repairs. The area was cordoned off and signs were put up.
Ms Kidd then arranged for a builder to carry out a thorough inspection and assessment of the deck. That work was carried out by McAulay Construction (Douglas McAulay). Mr McAulay found that: The deck is completely rotten and should be condemned. The foundations have been compromised and the deck is slipping down the hill. I do not feel it would be feasible to reinstate the deck without investing in engineering design, calculations, and significant retaining walls. My recommendation would be to remove the cabin from the site.
At the hearing, Ms Kidd said that deck was removed and replaced in April 2026. Ms Kidd said that the replacement deck has a smaller footprint, with new foundations, and it was not necessary for her to involve an engineer.
Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 4
This obligation is not a warranty that the premises will be free from defects during the tenancy. A landlord does not have to forsee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. 5
In this instance: a. Ms Kidd was aware of some (relatively minor) visible issues with the main deck, and she had these repaired before the start of the tenancy. b. Ms Middleton’s photographs show that there were visible signs of rot underneath the courtyard deck, but inspection of the underside of the deck is not part of routine property inspection checks that landlords carry out. c. Ms Middleton described some visually obvious issues with the deck (Ms Kidd had only partially painted the deck, and there were some lifted nails) but none of these issues are a flag or indication to a reasonable landlord that the deck could have structural / rot issues.
In short, the structural problems with the deck were a latent defect. The failure of the deck on 12 December was not a consequence of any failure by the landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
After the failure happened, Ms Kidd responded promptly and appropriately.
My finding is that the landlord did not breach its obligation to maintain the premises and there is no basis for an award of exemplary damages.
However, for reasons discussed more detail below, my finding is that there are grounds for the rent to abate from 12 December 2025 until the end of the tenancy, and for general damages on the grounds that Ms McKenzie lost the use and benefit of the tenancy due to an accumulation of problems with the property. Fridge
Ms Kidd said that the fridge was left by previous tenant, along with several other items of furniture. At the start of the tenancy, she told Ms Middleton that she could use the fridge and furniture if she wanted to, but she (Ms Kidd) was not responsible for maintaining it. 4 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 5 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007
Ms Middleton said that she had no recollection of any such conversation. She assumed that the fridge was part of the chattels of the tenancy.
The fridge functioned without problems up to when Ms Middleton went away to the South Island. When she returned, there was no power to the house. It seems that a fuse had tripped. Ms Kidd said that this happened during a storm when Ms Middleton was away.
The fridge had been without power for some time. The food inside it was rotten and covered with maggots. The fridge had to be disposed of.
As with the deck failure, there is no evidence to indicate that the power outage was due to a failure by the landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. I have no good evidence about the cause of the outage, and no reason to doubt Ms Kidd’s statement that it happened during a storm.
Although restoring power was a simple matter or flicking the switch on the fuseboard, the outage created a new problem for Ms Middleton. She was now without a working fridge / freezer. Rodents
Ms Middleton said that after moving into the property she often heard rats moving in the ceiling space and behind walls, in particular at night.
There was no sign of rat activity (droppings) inside the house, but one storage cupbard had a noticeable smell of rat urine.
Ms Middleton understood that the cabin is in the bush, and she did not raise any concerns with Ms Kidd.
The situation was dramatically different when she returned after being away. The inside of the house smelled strongly of rat urine.
Ms Middleton acknowledged that she had left in haste and inadvertently left the ranchslider door slightly open. However, Ms Kidd noticed this and shut the ranchslider within a day or two of her leaving. Ms Middleton left bagged rubbish outside the house.
The environment in which the premises is located means that it is likely to attract higher than average rodent activity.
There is no evidence to show that the problem was exacerbated by any failure to maintain the premises by the landlord.
Before the property was left empty for 5 weeks, the level of rodent activity was noticeable, but tolerable. The situation had changed markedly when Ms Middleton returned. The presence of rubbish possibly contributed to that, but no doubt the most significant factor is that without any humans present the rats were free to roam inside the house.
As with the deck there is no breach of a maintenance duty by the landlord, and therefore no grounds for exemplary damages, but (as discussed below) this is one factor supporting the conclusion that the rent should abate from 12 December, and Ms Middleton is entitled to some general damages arising from the sudden and impactful loss of accommodation. Rent, general damages
I am satisfied that the cumulative effect of the deck collapse, rat infestation, and loss of power resulting in rotten food and loss of fridge / freeze meant that the premises were not safely habitable for a woman in the latter stages of pregnancy and a young child.
Ms Middleton is not liable to pay rent beyond 12 December 2025. 6
The problems were not due to any failure by the landlord to maintain the premises. Ms Kidd responded promptly and appropriate to the issues when she was made aware of them.
However, the combination of issues effectively brought the tenancy to an abrupt end. Ms Middleton loss the use and enjoyment of the premises, which is the core of what a tenancy agreement is supposed to provide.
This caused significant disruption and distress for Ms Middleton. The deck failure that caused an injury to her son was particularly stressful.
Ultimately, Ms Middleton and her partner and son moved out of the area.
Courts and Tribunals may award damages for stress and inconvenience. The Tenancy Tribunal is required to determine disputes “according to the substantial merits and justice of the case”. 7
My finding is that it is appropriate to make an award of compensation to reflect the stress and inconvenience suffered by Ms Middleton as a result of the events of 12 December, and also the effective loss of the use and enjoyment of the premises after that date. I emphasise that this is not a penalty against the landlord, but an award of compensation to Ms Middleton.
The amount of compensation is necessarily conservative, because this is not an out-of-pocket cost that is easy to quantify, and because the figure cannot shade into a penalty on the landlord.
Having regard to those factors, I will award $500.00. 6 Section 59(1) RTA 7 Section 85(2) RTA Unlawful entry
Ms Kidd received Ms Middleton’s message on the afternoon of 13 December. She replied, stating that she would arrange for relevant contractors (pest control, electrician, cleaner, builder for the deck),
I understand that Ms Kidd and her contractor Steve went to the premises on 13 December. Ms Middleton was not present. Ms Kidd was able to reinstate the power. She sent Ms Middleton an email later that evening.
Ms Middleton replied: I did want to mention about the timeframe for these assessments. I was unaware that someone would be entering my house this afternoon and I don’t feel comfortable with that as I was not at home and I would have liked to have been present also.
Landlords may not enter the premises at any time during the tenancy unless: a. They have the tenant’s consent, given immediately before the entry; or b. They are entering for one of the purposes specified in the RTA, and they have given the tenant the appropriate notice in writing before entry; or c. It is an emergency.
In this instance: a. Ms Middleton told Ms Kidd about the problems and the urgency of them, clearly with the expectation / understanding that Ms Kidd would take action in response, including coming to the property. However, this does not equate to consent to enter the premises. b. Ms Kidd did not give notice. c. The situation was urgent but not a genuine emergency. Ms Middleton had told Ms Kidd that she was staying somewhere else. Ms Kidd could have given notice.
Therefore I find that Ms Kidd’s entry into the premises was unlawful.
It is an unlawful act for a landlord to enter the premises unlawfully during the tenancy. The Tenancy Tribunal can award exemplary damages of up to $1,500 for this unlawful act.
In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to: 8 a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and 8 Section 109 RTA c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
Ms Kidd entered the premises unlawfully. It is appropriate to award exemplary damages, but there are significant mitigating factors that justify an award at the low end of the scale: a. Ms Kidd’s intent was only to address the problems as a matter of urgency. b. Ms Kidd attempted to contact Ms Middleton by phone but was unable to get hold of her. c. Ms Middleton was not living in the house at the time. This does not remove Ms Kidd’s obligations in respect of entering the premises, but it is relevant when considering the direct impact on Ms Middleton of the unlawful entry.
Having regard to these factors I will award exemplary damages of $150.00. Filing fee, bond, outcome
Both parties were partially successful in their applications and I will award the filing fee to both parties. 9
The net outcome is that Ms Kidd is to receive $1,293.23 from the bond. The balance of the bond will be paid to Ms Middleton.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5419468 — Rent arrears at 133 Pukenui Road, Ngunguru, RD 3, Whangarei 0173,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5419468 — Rent arrears at 133 Pukenui Road, Ngunguru, RD 3, Whangarei 0173,

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