Tenant wins compensation for breaches of Residential Tenancies Act
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled in favour of the tenant, awarding compensation for various breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair, leading to compensation for issues such as an unclean swimming pool, faulty appliances, and other inconveniences.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to compensation for breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, including failure to provide premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair.
📖 What the law says
This section states that a landlord must provide a rental property in a reasonable state of cleanliness and keep it in a reasonable state of repair. It also requires landlords to meet all building, health, and safety requirements that apply to the property.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal awarded the tenant compensation for various breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal awarded the tenant compensation for various breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, including failure to provide premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair, and malfunctioning appliances. The compensation included sums for loss of amenity and inconvenience suffered.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5199954 1
[2025] NZTT 5199954
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT PAPAKURA | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI PAPAKURA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], Karaka, RD 2, Papakura 2578
ORDER
1. [COMPANY] must pay [NAME] and [NAME] $5,840.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
Description Landlord Tenant Compensation: loss of use of pool for 17 weeks to 11 April 2025 @ $150 per week
$2,550.00
Compensation: loss of amenity due to unsightly sediments in pool for 4 weeks from 11 April to 7 May 2025 @ $50 per week
$200.00
Compensation: loss of use of attic storage space for 2 weeks
$200.00
Compensation: unrepaired intercom for 21 weeks @ $30.00 per week
$630.00
Compensation: dishwasher not working for 8 weeks @ $50.00 per week
$400.00
Compensation: plumbing issues (4 weeks x $100 per week)
$400.00
Compensation: not providing premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition
$500.00
Reimbursement of light bulbs $133.75 Reimbursement of power charges on the second meter $800.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $5,840.75 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $5,840.75
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5199954 2
2.The tenants’ claim for early termination of the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing.
2. [NAME] and [NAME] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).
3. Under section 45, a landlord must:
a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness;
b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; and
c) comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
4. The premises have not been provided to the tenant in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the start of the tenancy. I award the tenant reasonable cleaning costs of $500.00.
5. The attic above the garage was also not provided to the tenant in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. I award the tenant $200.00 for 2 weeks’ loss of use of the storage space while the landlord’s tradespeople cleaned up the attic to get rid of dead rats and mice droppings during the first couple of weeks of the tenancy.
6. The swimming pool has not been maintained to a usable state at the start of the tenancy. While the tenant is responsible for day-to-day maintenance and consumables, the landlord is responsible for providing written instructions, samples of chemicals to be used and ensuring that the pool water quality is adequate and the pool aesthetically pleasant for use at the start of the tenancy. I find that the pool had not been maintained to an adequate condition prior to [NAME]’s involvement as property manager; the water quality was only chlorinated to the right balance from 11 April 2025 onwards. At the time the tenant vacated on 7 May 2025, the pool was still not cleaned properly in that unsightly sediments beneath the pool are still present.
7. I award compensation to the tenant for loss of use of the pool for 17 weeks from the start of the tenancy in 11 December to 11 April 2025 calculated at $150 per week, and for loss of amenity due to unsightly sediments in pool for 4 weeks from 11 April to 7 May 2025 calculated at $50 per week.
8. The tenant is entitled to a working intercom from the gate to the house. I award the tenant compensation for the unrepaired intercom for 21 weeks calculated at $30.00 per week for the loss of amenity and inconvenience suffered.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5199954 3
9. The dishwasher did not work properly for 8 weeks, despite the earlier efforts of the tradespeople to repair it. I award the tenant compensation calculated at $50.00 per week. The dishwasher was subsequently replaced.
10. The tenant endured plumbing issues during the first 4 weeks of their tenancy. I award the tenant compensation calculated at $100 per week for the inconvenience and loss of amenities.
11. The landlord agrees to reimburse the costs of light bulbs replaced by the tenant.
12. Finally, I order the reimbursement of a portion of the power charges incurred by the tenancy on the second meter because the tenant had not had properly use of the pool and pump.
13. Despite the above issues ensured by the tenant at various times during the tenancy, only the swimming pool and intercom were not fully remedied at the time the tenant vacated the premises on 7 May 2025. Having regard to the nature and extent of the landlord’s breach, I do not consider that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy under section 56 RTA. I therefore dismiss the tenant’s application for early termination of the fixed term tenancy.
14. Only the amounts ordered are proved.
J Tam
30 May 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5199954 4
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5199954 5
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
- The swimming pool was not maintained to a usable state at the start of the tenancy.
- The intercom between the gate and the house was not functioning.
- Plumbing issues caused inconvenience during the first weeks of the tenancy.
- The dishwasher was not working properly for 8 weeks.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenants' request for early termination of the fixed-term tenancy was dismissed.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal awarded the tenant compensation for various breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the landlord's failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair, resulting in issues like an unclean swimming pool and faulty appliances.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the tenant because the landlord failed to meet their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, particularly regarding the provision of clean and well-maintained premises.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, specifically section 45, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair, which is a requirement under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might be entitled to compensation if their landlord fails to provide clean and well-maintained premises as required by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of the premises not being in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair, including issues with the swimming pool and faulty appliances, was presented.