How much money was awarded in case 4382305?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4382305?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4382305?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9614292-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4382305?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4382305?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4382305?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9614292-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Published tribunal order

Tenancy Tribunal case 4382305 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4382305 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Decided 10 Nov 2023 · Published 10 Nov 2023 · Application 4382305

Cleanliness
Harassment
Healthy homes
Leaks
Mould & damp
Rent arrears
Smoke alarms
State of repair

Party names are redacted in the official published order.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
There are no monetary orders made against [Tenant 1].
[The landlord/s] must pay [Tenant 1] $ 1,250.00 immediately, as set out in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s].
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $4,837.42 immediately, as set out in the table below:

Reasons

On 22 August 2022, the landlord filed a claim for termination due to rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. The first hearing, initially scheduled for telephone hearing on 09 September 2022, was adjourned and rescheduled for a face-to-face hearing on 03 October 2022.
On 03 October 2022, the landlord advised that the tenant, [Tenant 2] had, since filing the application, vacated the property. The landlord requested to amend their application to rent arrears, refund of the bond, break lease costs, and rent until the commencement of the new tenancy, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The application was granted, and the matter adjourned to allow [Tenant 2] reasonable time to consider the amended application. [Tenant 1], representing [Tenant 2] also advised that [Tenant 2] intended to file a counterclaim.
On 23 February 2019, [Tenant 1] and the landlord entered into a fixed term tenancy agreement to end on 22 April 2021. On 23 April 2021, [Tenant 2] and the landlord entered a fixed term tenancy agreement to end on 23 April 2023.
[Tenant 2]’s counterclaim, filed on 25 October 2022, covered both tenancies, [Tenant 1]’s from 23 February 2019 to 22 April 2021 and [Tenant 2]’s from 23 April 2021 until the end of the tenancy.
At a Case Management Conference on 06 December 2022, the Tribunal directed that two separate applications should be made, one for each tenancy. The parties requested that the claims be heard together, as they involved the same witnesses. The Tribunal agreed. Also relevant was [Tenant 1]’s representation of [Tenant 2] on medical grounds.
On 21 December 2022, the Tribunal heard evidence relating to the landlord’s claim. The matter was adjourned part heard. An application relating to [Tenant 1]’s tenancy from 23 February 2019 to 22 April 2022 was filed on 03 February 2023. Delays occurred due to insufficient time, the unwellness of the parties, and other unavailability. The final hearing of the evidence was concluded on 28 August 2023. The decision was reserved.
The Tribunal has heard evidence from [The senior property manager], senior property manager, [The directors], who are directors of the landlord company, and [Property manager 1] and [Property manager 2]. [Senior property manager], [Property manager 1], and [Property manager 2] were directly involved in the tenancy of [Tenant 2], while [The directors] were not directly involved in either tenancy. The Tribunal has considered [The directors] evidence to be opinion evidence and given it the appropriate weight.
Apart from several written submissions, and in [Tenant 2]’s claim an affidavit, both tenant’s provided minimal documentary evidence in support of their claims, such as texts, emails, and letters sent to the landlord. Despite both being dissatisfied with the landlord’s management, they did not issue any 14-day notice requiring the landlord to remedy any defect or damage during both tenancies.
[Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] both gave oral evidence. The Tribunal has also heard from [Witness 1], lawyer and whanau friend to the tenant, [Witness 2], plumber, and [Witness 3], building surveyor. The tenant also produced affidavits from [Witness 4], sales executive, and [Witness 5], arborist.
The evidence of [Witness 4] can carry very little weight. [Witness 4] made general statements that the property is cold, and that he had seen woolly nightshade in the garden. The rest of his evidence is based solely on information provided by the tenant.
Throughout the hearings, and in their closing submissions, both parties complained about each other’s conduct. During the hearings both parties required regular reminders to refrain from speaking over and interrupting each other. [Tenant 1] complained that [The directors] had sat beside and “coached” the property managers, stating, “This behaviour seems really unfair as [The directors] are exerting undue influence over their staff’s statements and potentially affecting the Tribunals decision making process.” Whether [The directors] support of their property managers during the hearing has added to the landlord’s defence of the claims made against them is debatable. It has not influenced the Tribunal’s decision-making process. I acknowledge [Tenant 1]’s concerns but put them to one side. [Tenant 1] also complained the tenant had been forced to “endure constant whispering from [The directors] and their property managers.” Both parties engaged in whispered conversation while the other party gave evidence.
Despite these challenges, both parties have had the opportunity to call all their witnesses, present all their evidence, and make full submissions uninterrupted.
Both parties have challenged the others credibility. The landlord complained that [Tenant 1] had sent an email posing as the landlord to a contractor, seeking disclosure of material. The email concerned was produced. The landlord submitted that this was deceptive and dishonest. [Tenant 1] accepted that he had done so, was unapologetic, and stated that he had been frustrated by the landlord’s lack of disclosure, and the Tribunal’s apparent inability to make orders for discovery. [Tenant 1] in turn complained that the landlord had contacted two of their witnesses, [Witness 2] and [Witness 3] and sought to confirm their credentials and experience. I have put these matters to one side. The factual findings in this matter have been made based on the objective assessment of the oral evidence of the parties, the other witnesses, the physical and documentary evidence, including photographs, and written submissions. The landlord’s claims
The landlord’s claims are that [Tenant 2] owes rent arrears, having broken the fixed term agreement, is liable for rent until the landlord entered into a new tenancy, and is liable for reasonable costs associated with the reletting of the property. There are no claims made against [Tenant 1]. [Tenant 1]’s claims
[Tenant 1]’s claims covering the period 23 February 2019 to 22 April 2021 are that: (i)The landlord has failed to maintain the alarm system, (ii)The landlord has failed to maintain a set of bi fold doors between a second lounge and the dining / living room, (iii)The landlord has failed to maintain the built - in vacuum cleaning system, (iv)The landlord has failed to maintain the gas cooking hob, (v)The landlord has failed to maintain the lighting throughout the property, (vi)The landlord has failed to maintain the upstairs bathroom, (vii)The landlord has failed to maintain the dishwasher, (viii)The landlord has failed to provide and maintain the waste disposal unit, (ix)The landlord has failed to maintain the oven, (x)The landlord has failed to maintain the lino and carpet, (xi)The landlord has failed to provide an approved form of heating in the main living room, (xii)The landlord has failed to comply with the insulation standards,
The claims at (i) – (x) are made under section 45(1)(b) of the Act. In both tenancies the Healthy Homes Standards came into effect of 01 July 2025. The claim at (xi) is made under section 45(1)(c) and Regulation 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947. The claim at (xii) is made under section 45(1)(c) and the Residential tenancies (Smoke alarm and insulation) Regulations 2016.
[Tenant 1] is claiming compensation, which he has not quantified, on the basis that the breaches by the landlord have, “disrupted [the] peace quiet and enjoyment of life and added stress to our family.” [Tenant 1]’s claim is that the landlord, by breaching their obligations under section 45(1)(b) and (c), has interfered with the reasonable peace and comfort of the tenant under section 38(1) of the Act. [Tenant 2]’s claim
[Tenant 2]’s claims are the same as [Tenant 1]’s except for an additional claim that the landlord has failed to maintain the grounds in a reasonable condition. Similarly, [Tenant 2]’s claim for compensation is based on the alleged breaches amounting to an interference with the reasonable peace and comfort of the tenant.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the respective applicants. The standard of proof required in on the balance of probabilities. Each party must establish, more likely than not, that the other has breached the tenancy agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Landlord’s claim
Dealing firstly with the landlord’s claim against [Tenant 2] for rent arrears, reasonable costs associated with breaking a fixed term tenancy, and rent until the entering of a new tenancy agreement.
The tenancy of [Tenant 2] commenced on 23 April 2021 and was for a fixed term to end on 23 April 2023. On or about 22 August 2022, [Tenant 2] approached the landlord about ending the fixed term. The tenant attempted to give the landlord notice to end the fixed term, citing a failure on the part of the landlord to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.
On or about 23 August 2023, the landlord responded that there was no provision in the agreement or the Act for the termination of the fixed term by notice. If the tenant wished to bring the fixed term to an end, they would need to complete an agreement, the terms of which reflected the provisions of the Act.
On 26 August 2022, the tenant advised the landlord they refused to agree the terms, which included liability for rent until a new tenancy was entered, and costs associated with re letting the property. The tenant advised that they intended vacating the property on 16 September 2022, which was later extended to 23 September 2023 due to whanau unwellness.
On 27 September 2022, the landlord visited the property and discovered it vacant. The landlord then advertised the property for rent, and after due diligence, entered into a new agreement commencing 21 October 2022. A copy of the new tenancy has been produced. No rent payments were made after 04 August 2023. The landlord has produced a rent summary showing the rent arrears on 23 September 2022 amounted to $4,240.71. The rent owing to the commencement of the new tenancy is $ 7,100.71.
When entering a fixed term tenancy, the tenant is liable for the rent until the end of that fixed term unless the parties otherwise agree in the tenancy agreement. There are no provisions in the Act allowing a party to unilaterally give notice to end a fixed term. There is a provision in the Act enabling a tenant to give notice not to continue with a periodic tenancy at the end of the fixed term, although that does not apply in this case.
Section 50(1)(d) provides that a tenancy may be terminated where the tenant surrenders the tenancy to the landlord with the landlords written consent, in other words they agree in writing to end the tenancy. Fixed term tenancy agreements usually contain a term mirroring section 50(1)(d) allowing the parties to agree to bring a fixed term to an end. When parties agree under section 50(1)(d), the landlord may seek reasonable costs associated with reletting, as specified in section 44A (1) of the Act. This is also a provision usually contained in any agreement.
The relevant clause contained in the tenancy agreement states, “Fixed term tenancy: if this is a tenancy for a fixed term and it is mutually agreed under exceptional circumstances that the tenant will be released, it is agreed that the tenant will pay for all costs and time of [The property management company] to relet the property, in addition to continuing to pay rent until the day before the new tenancy commences”.
By vacating the property before the end of the fixed term without the agreement of the landlord, the tenant has breached to terms of the agreement, and the provisions of the Act.
While [Tenant 2] may be held liable for rent arrears to 23 September 2022, and potentially the end of the fixed term on 23 April 2023, the landlord is only seeking rent to commencement of the new tenancy.
I award the landlord rent arrears to 23 September 2022, and the rent due to the start of the new tenancy on 20 October 2022, as claimed.
Regarding the costs of reletting, even though these have not been agreed upon, they are a cost incurred because of the tenant’s breach of the agreement. The landlord has produced a detailed account. The amount claimed is reasonable and awarded in full. Tenant’s claims
Both tenants claim that during their respective tenancies, the landlord failed to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.
Both [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] resided at the property during the tenancy of the other.
Section 45(1)(b) of the Act states that the landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the property and the period during which the property is likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
The landlord’s obligation under section 45(1)(b) of the Act is to investigate and repair any defect brought to their attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what that timeframe is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right whatever the problem might be.
In each claim the respective tenants must establish the fault or damage, when it was first raised, what was the landlord’s response, was the matter satisfactory resolved within a reasonable time frame, if not why, if to resolved how many times was the matter raised, and what loss has the tenant suffered as a result. As stated, the onus is on the tenant to prove the claim.
The property was constructed in 2004 and has two stories. There are four bedrooms, an open plan dining / lounge / kitchen, a separate lounge area, a full bathroom, master bathroom ensuite, another separate toilet, a laundry room, and an internal double garage. Has the landlord failed to maintain the alarm system- [Tenant 1]’s tenancy 23 February 2019 to 22 April 2021
The property has a security alarm system. Although there is no pre tenancy inspection report provided for [Tenant 1]’s tenancy, the checklist attached to [Tenant 2]’s agreement suggests that the alarm system is a chattel.
[Tenant 1] claims despite being given the code and instructions on how to use the alarm, he couldn’t programme it, and it constantly beeped. Although, [Tenant 1] could not say exactly when it was raised, he believed that it was sometime around 27 February 2019. He raised it again in March 2019 and once more in July 2020. [Tenant 1] states a contractor visited on three occasions but was unable to remedy the issue. [Tenant 1] states that on the fourth visit, it was determined that only the original installer could stop the beeping. [Tenant 1] states the alarm was finally disconnected in April 2021, just before the end of his tenancy.
[Tenant 2]’s evidence was consistent with [Tenant 1]. [Witness 1] stated that the alarm was beeping when she visited the property around Easter 2020, and then on a return visit later that year. She was aware that it was an issue that remained unresolved for some time.
The landlord believes that they did everything possible to address the issue and that the alarm was eventually silenced. The landlord states that the contractor who attended in April 2021 initially had difficulty gaining access and they were unsure of the outcome. [Property manager 1] stated that since the end of [Tenant 2]’s tenancy he visited the property and that the alarm was working. He added that disconnecting of the monitoring function would have stopped the beeping. The landlord has produced a photograph of the alarm screen, which they state does not show any fault. [Property manager 1] states that once disconnected from the monitoring company [Tenant 1] was then free to engage with another to monitor the alarm or use it monitored. The landlord also states that if the alarm had been beeping as described that the property manager would have noted it. However, the property manager for [Tenant 1]’s tenancy no longer works for the landlord.
Based on the evidence, I am satisfied to the required standard that there has been a breach. The alarm has been provided as a chattel and on that basis the landlord was obliged to maintain it in a working order. Although they may have attempted to remedy the issue, they have ultimately been unsuccessful, and the tenant has been unable to use the alarm system provided.
Addressing the issue of compensation. In the case of Smith v Floris Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at 6, the Tribunal stated, “Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents”.
While claiming compensation on the basis that the landlord’s failure to maintain the property has interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy is possible, in this case, doing so requires the tenant not only establish a failure to maintain, but also that the failure has significantly [my emphasis] affected their ability to enjoy the property.
The Tribunals jurisdiction to award damages and compensation is set out in section 77(2)(n) of the Act: (n) to order the landlord or the tenant under any tenancy agreement to which this Act applies to pay to the other party such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any express or implied provision of the tenancy agreement or any provision of this Act.
The purpose of damages is to compensate for the actual loss incurred. The loss suffered must have arisen naturally from the breach or be a loss within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the commencement of the tenancy.
In this claim, and for others that have been proven, the loss suffered is the result of the tenant not getting what they bargained for under the agreement. Not doing so will amount to a loss of amenity. In determining the quantum of damages to be awarded the Tribunal will make an objective assessment of the value of the loss of those things the tenant had bargained for under the agreement. In this case the loss of the alarm. [Tenant 1] states the constant beeping was annoying, and the inability to set the alarm caused anxiety, especially as nearby neighbours had experienced a home invasion. I award [Tenant 1] damages for loss of amenity of $500.00 [Tenant 2]’s tenancy 22 April 2021 to 23 September 2022
The pre tenancy checklist, which was signed by [Tenant 2] on 01 April 2021, records next to the heading security alarm “op” and provides the phone number of the alarm monitoring company. There has been no evidence as to what “op” means, although I anticipate it is short for operational. There is also no evidence that [Tenant 2] attempted to use the alarm system nor that it was raised with the landlord as an ongoing issue. I am not satisfied that the alarm system was not operative at the commencement and during [Tenant 2]’s tenancy. The claim is dismissed. Has the landlord failed to maintain a set of bi fold doors between the second lounge and main living area - [Tenant 1]’s tenancy
There is a wooden bi fold door which may be used to separate a lounge area from the main lounge/ dining room / kitchen area. [Tenant 1] states at the commencement of the tenancy, the door functioned, but soon after, it started to come off its hinges and became inoperable. [Tenant 1] states that door was especially necessary in winter to regulate the heat between the two living spaces. [Tenant 1] states he informed the landlord about this issue on or about 25 November 2019. [Tenant 1] understood that a quote had been approved to repair the door. [Tenant 1] states despite attempts by four contractors, none could repair the door, and that it remained unresolved at the end of his tenancy.
[Witness 1] stated that she visited the property at least once during [Tenant 1]’s tenancy and observed that the door concerned was broken and could not be opened.
The landlord stated that on 16 January 2020, a quote had been approved to repair the door. The landlord stated that during [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2]’s tenancies approximately sixteen inspections and many visits by contractors had to be rescheduled at the request of the tenant. The tenant denied that they had intentionally delayed any work to the doors, stating that only contractors who turned up without sufficient notice would be turned away.
The landlord produced photographs taken during an inspection on 19 January 2021 which does not show any visible damage to the door. The landlord states that they have no record of the tenant raising it as an ongoing issue. [Tenant 1] states that the damage was not of a type that was visible in a photograph and that the door had been closed and wedges placed under it to keep it in place. [Tenant 1] denies not raising it, and states that he mentioned it to the property manager during inspections, who has since left the landlord.
There appears to be no dispute that the door had a fault. While the landlord appears to have initially arranged for its repair, it was not completed. The exact reason why it was not repaired during [Tenant 1]’s tenancy is however unclear. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that there has been a failure to maintain the door concerned. The inconvenience caused has resulted in a loss of amenity. For the period November 2019 to the end of [Tenant 1]’s tenancy in April 2021, I award damages of $500.00. [Tenant 2]’s tenancy
At the end of [Tenant 1]’s tenancy and prior to that of [Tenant 2]’s the landlord conducted an inspection and completed a pre tenancy inspection report. This has been produced dated 01 April 2021. The report does not record there being any issues with the door concerned. The landlord states that the report was completed by a property manager and then sent to [Tenant 2] who was invited to record any other matters arising. [Tenant 2] states that she was under pressure at the material time and signed without noting any of the matters from [Tenant 1]’s tenancy outstanding, such as the bi fold doors. Despite failing to record it in the pre tenancy checklist [Tenant 2] states that she continued to raise the matter with the property manager. [Tenant 2] has produced an email to [Property manager 2] dated 08 June 2022, referring to the bi fold door as an outstanding issue. Despite the email being acknowledged [Tenant 2] states that nothing was done.
[Witness 1] stated that she visited the property during [Tenant 2]’s tenancy and witnessed that the issue concerning the door appeared to remain unresolved.
The landlord acknowledged receiving the email dated 08 June 2022 and accepted that the bi fold door had some “dysfunction”. [The senior property manager] stated that the landlord had sent contractors to inspect the door. [The senior property manager] stated that he visited the property with another property manager and conducted an inspection on 18 July 2022.
[The senior property manager] accepted that there was a discussion about the door but that because the tenant had placed furniture in front the door, he could not determine the nature of the fault. [The senior property manager] stated that during the visit [Tenant 1], on behalf of [Tenant 2] said, “Don’t worry about fixing the doors as we keep them closed and have a shelf in front of them,” or words to that effect.
[Tenant 1] stated that any comment about the doors was likely out of frustration. [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] state that as the door could not be operated that they gave up trying and kept the door closed.
[Property manager 2], who accompanied [The senior property manager] at the inspection on 18 July 2022, stated that she could not recall receiving the email on 08 June 2022 but accepted that it had been sent to the landlord. [Property manager 2] states that during the inspection [Tenant 2] had also said not to worry about the doors because the lounge room was being used as a separate room, and the doors would remain closed even if repaired. [The senior property manager] has produced photographs taken showing the doors closed and with the lounge being used as a home office.
Although not recorded in the pre tenancy checklist, I am satisfied that the issue with the bi fold door remained outstanding at the commencement of [Tenant 2]’s tenancy. I am satisfied it was raised by [Tenant 2] in the email to the landlord 08 June 2022. The matter was not addressed and continued to remain outstanding until the end of the tenancy. Although the tenant may have indicated on 18 July 2022 that they no longer sought to have the doors repaired, I accept the tenant’s evidence that any comment was borne out of frustration.
Based on the evidence I am satisfied that there has been a failure to maintain the door. The inconvenience caused has resulted in a loss of amenity. In determining the level of inconvenience, I also take into consideration that the tenant had toward the end of the tenancy chosen to repurpose the room. I award damages of $300.00. Has the landlord failed to maintain the built-in vacuum cleaning system - [Tenant 1]’s tenancy
The property has a built-in vacuum system. [Tenant 1] states that on or about 21 May 2020 a contractor attended the property to service the unit. [Tenant 1] states that he was advised by the contractor that the system needed “fixing or replacing.” [Tenant 1] stated that there were on going issues with the vacuum, that he advised the landlord verbally but could not recall when or how often he had done so. [Tenant 1] stated that the head of the vacuum would catch on the carpet, and the hose emitted a high-pitched whistling noise. [Tenant 1] has produced the head of the vacuum cleaner, which shows signs of wear and tear, which he claims is indicative of the general condition of the unit.
The landlord has produced an invoice from the contractor who serviced the unit dated 21 May 2020. The contractor replaced filters, inlet valves, and the head piece. There are no other outstanding issues noted. The landlord believes that the vacuum was functioning. [The senior property manager] stated that there was no record of any other issues being raised by [Tenant 1].
[Tenant 1] has been unclear as to when he may have raised any ongoing issues concerning the vacuum. During his evidence, [Tenant 1] also stated that it was more relevant to [Tenant 2]’s tenancy. I am not satisfied that any ongoing issues concerning the internal vacuum cleaner were raised by [Tenant 1] during his tenancy. The claim is dismissed. [Tenant 2]’s tenancy
The vacuum system is recorded in the pre tenancy inspection report. There is no reference to its condition.
[Tenant 2] produced an email to the property manager dated 08 June 2022, in which she reported “We are having trouble with the internal vacuum system again. [Tenant 1] pointed this out to you. The foot of the vacuum fell off due to old age and a rubber washer type thing perished. The system is about 18 years old, I think, so it really does need maintenance, and it’s the only vacuum we have”.
[Tenant 2] stated that the property manager arranged for a contractor to visit the property and collect the hose, handpiece, and head. [Tenant 2] stated that the contractor later advised that a seal, the hose, and the head or foot of the vacuum were worn out and required replacing. There is no evidence that the actual suction unit was faulty. [Tenant 2] believed the contractor had shared their findings with the landlord and were waiting for a response. [Tenant 2] states that the contractor then returned the objects stating they had not heard back from the landlord. [Tenant 2] stated that she was then contacted by the property manager, who advised that they could provide a portable vacuum cleaner. The tenant rejected the offer, stating there were only a limited number of power points throughout the property, and that using a traditional vacuum cleaner, without a long extension lead, was impractical. The matter remained outstanding to the end of the tenancy. The tenant applied glue and cellotape to repair the hand piece and foot. The foot produced by [Tenant 1] has remnants of cellotape.
The landlord acknowledges that the matter had been raised during a property inspection toward the end of [Tenant 2]’s tenancy. The landlord stated that the contractor had advised they were being harassed by the tenant. The landlord states they were advised that although the vacuum still functioned, that it would be too expensive to fix, and that there was no point replacing the hose or foot. There is no evidence from the contractor concerned. The tenant disputes that the whole system needed to be replaced and states that replacing the handpiece, hose and foot would not have been overly expensive. The landlord acknowledged that the matter could have been handled better.
I am satisfied that the landlord has failed to maintain the internal vacuum system. There are no photographs of the hand piece or hose, and I am unable to make an objective assessment as to any damage or fault. The foot has been produced and shows signs of wear and tear. I am advised that the vacuum could still be used. I accept however that it would not have been optimal to use. The tenant was offered a replacement vacuum but declined the offer. After hearing from both parties, I am of the view that the loss of amenity was minor. For the period from when the matter was raised in July 2022 to the end the tenancy in September 2022, I award damages of $150.00. Has the landlord failed to maintain the gas cooking hob - [Tenant 1]’s tenancy
The property was equipped with a four-burner gas hob. [Tenant 1] claimed that within two months of the start of the tenancy, the ignition mechanism of two burners ceased working. On or about 23 April 2019, a contractor visited the property and serviced the hob. On 29 November 2019, [Tenant 1] sent a text message to the property manager suggesting that the hob should be replaced rather than serviced. [Tenant 1] stated that problems with lighting the hob continued and on or about 02 December 2019, the hob had to be serviced again. [Tenant 1] states the hobs had to be lit manually. [Tenant 1] states that the contractor who attended in December 2019, advised that the starters could not be repaired, and that the hob should be replaced. The hob needed to be serviced again on or about 09 February 2021.
[Tenant 1] submits the number of servicing events show that the hob had an obvious defect and should have been replaced. [Tenant 1] submits that once the contractor who attended on December 2019 had recommended the hob be replaced, that the landlord should have done so. [Tenant 1] is of the view that this situation, along with the other faults he is claiming, is an example of the landlord’s “dysfunction.” [Tenant 1] states that despite continuing to report issues with the hob that they remained unresolved.
[Witness 1] stated that when visiting the address recalled issues with the hob from late 2020 to early 2021.
[The senior property manager] submits that the landlord had responded appropriately when issues were raised, and that none of the contractors had given advice during [Tenant 1]’s tenancy that the hob should be replaced. [The senior property manager] stated that there were no texts, emails, letters, or notices to corroborate [Tenant 1]’s claims that he had continued to raise issues until the end of his tenancy. [The directors] stated that any contractor employed by the landlord typically included any recommendation beyond the work completed in their invoice. None of the invoices concerning the hob recommend replacement.
After hearing from the parties and considering the other evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately.
The hob appears to have been serviced three times in two years. However, there is no evidence as to whether this is excessive or necessarily suggests a fault.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal from someone suitably qualified concerning the exact nature or cause of any fault. There is no evidence on which the Tribunal can make a proper objective assessment. None of the landlord’s witnesses can give direct evidence on the matter. [Witness 1] does not describe the fault. All the invoice’s produced report that the hob was cleaned, presumingly to remove blockages hindering the ignition mechanisms. Based on the evidence, I cannot be satisfied to the required standard that the landlord has failed to respond when advised during [Tenant 1]’s tenancy. The claim is dismissed. [Tenant 2]’s tenancy
The pre tenancy checklist for [Tenant 2]’s tenancy does not record any issues with the gas hob. [Tenant 2] stated that at least two more technicians came to service the hob after 23 April 2021. [Tenant 2] is unable to provide dates. [Tenant 2] believed that one reported to the property manager that the ignition starter needed replacing. The hob is not raised in [Tenant 2]’s email to the landlord on 08 June 2022. The landlord stated that they had no record of the matter being raised after the commencement of [Tenant 2]’s tenancy. Despite the matter not being raised the hob was replaced in December 2021.
The landlord has explained that the hob, which was twenty years old, was replaced because it was no longer cost effective to continue the necessary servicing.
The invoice to replace the hob is undated. The landlord states that some of the contractors requested that their contact details not be shared with the tenant for fear of harassment. The landlord stated that in redacting the contractors details they had inadvertently removed the date.
The onus is on [Tenant 2] to establish that the landlord has failed to respond when advised of the fault. [Tenant 2] is unable to provide dates of when she reported the matter after the commencement of her tenancy. There is no evidence of when the other contractors may have attended. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately. The claim is dismissed. Has the landlord failed to maintain the lighting throughout the property - [Tenant 1]’s tenancy
[Tenant 1] claims that the wiring in the property was faulty, resulting in lights blowing particularly in the kitchen and the upstairs bedrooms. However, [Tenant 1] is unable to provide clear evidence as to when he raised the matter with the landlord. The landlord arranged for an electrician to attend the property on 18 January 2020. According to [Tenant 1] the electrician advised that the wiring at the property was dangerous. Subsequently, another electrician visited the property on 11 July 2020.
Due to the potential risks to both people and property the landlord stated that electricity related issues are taken seriously and responded to promptly. The landlord stated they have a practice of giving the electrician an open brief to complete any work necessary. The invoices produced do not indicate any major issues beyond fair wear and tear related to faulty wiring or safety concerns.
Based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations to properly investigate the matter when raised. The timing and frequency of [Tenant 1]’s complaints are unclear. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the landlord’s response was appropriate. Additionally, the electrician’s invoices do not mention any overriding safety concerns. The claim that the landlord has failed to maintain the wiring during [Tenant 1]’s tenancy is dismissed. [Tenant 2]’s tenancy
The pre tenancy checklist shows that 6 out of the 10 downlights in the lounge / living room were functioning, while all other lights in the property were working.
On 08 June 2022, [Tenant 2] sent an email to [Property manager 2] stating “We have an issue with the lights. Many do not work, even when the bulbs are replaced, last inspection you were here I asked [Tenant 1] to take you around and show you but still nothing has been done. The lights on the range hood don’t work either and I have no idea how to replace those ones.” [Tenant 2] states that there was no response.
The issue was raised again during an inspection attended by [The senior property manager] on 18 July 2022. [Tenant 2] has produced a text message sent to [Property manager 2] dated 01 August 2022 complaining that the lights continued to blow, and some power points had stopped working. On 10 August 2022, the electrician, who had previously attended on 20 January 2020 and 11 July 2020, visited, and completed more work. As with the other invoices the electrician has set out in detail the work completed. Once again there do not appear to be any indications of overarching or inherent safety issues.
There was nothing reported in 2019, there were two visits by the electrician in 2020, nothing reported for 2021, the matter was raised again on 08 June 2022 and again on 01 August 2022 and addressed on 10 August 2022. I am not satisfied that there were necessarily any issues with the electrical system other than fair wear and tear.
The issue in this case is whether the landlord has failed to address the matter within a reasonable period. Considering the ongoing wear and tear that the wiring was experiencing, I find the two months between 08 June 2022 and 10 August 2022 was in the circumstances unreasonable. In this instance I find that the landlord has failed to respond within a reasonable period, and that the tenant has suffered a loss of amenity. Considering the extent of the loss of amenity I award [Tenant 2] damages of $150.00. Has the landlord failed to maintain the upstairs bathroom - [Tenant 1]’s tenancy
There are two matters concerning the upstairs bathroom, one involving a leak to the side of the shower and the other a cracked tile on the floor of the shower, both of which [Tenant 1] claims have remained unresolved and have resulted in the formation of black mould which has adversely affected the health of the occupants.
Dealing the with the leak to the side of the shower. On 14 November 2019 [Tenant 1] messaged the property manager about a shower leak. [Tenant 1] states that a plumber attended shortly afterward and applied silicone to the leak which he stated did not remedy the issue. [Tenant 1] has produced a text message he claims was sent to the property manager on 29 November 2019 in which he states “.... and the leak in the shower is still running over the floor and we are constantly having to put down towels, I’d like a solution ASAP.” [Tenant 1] states that despite two attempts and ongoing complaints that the matter remained unresolved.
The landlord has produced a plumber’s invoice showing that on 19 November 2022 a leak was fixed. The landlord stated that to their knowledge the leak was fixed and not raised again during [Tenant 1]’s tenancy. However, the property manager at the material time has since left the landlord.
The landlord called [Witness 6], plumber, who stated that he had been called to attend the property and deal with a leak on 19 November 2019. [Witness 6] stated that it was not uncommon to have jobs described in general terms. [Witness 6] stated he discovered that the shower drain was blocked resulting in a flood. Assuming that was the “leak” he had been called to attend, he believed that he had dealt with the issue. [Witness 6] states that he was called back to the property about 10 days later to deal with another leak in the bathroom. On this occasion [Witness 6] states that he discovered the leak to the side of the shower. [Witness 6] stated he applied silicone to the outside of the leak and was confident that it had been resolved. [Witness 6] cannot recall any damage to the skirting board but states that it was 18 months ago. [Witness 6] stated it was possible that the leak to the side of the shower was the issue that he had been called to investigate, but that the flood caused by the blocked drain had, on the first visit, been the most obvious issue at the time.
[Witness 6] stated that he had not attended to the cracked tile but had been back through records showing that another plumber from his company had attended and applied silicon to the cracked tile on 01 August 2022. [Witness 6] cannot give any direct evidence on that matter. [Tenant 1] challenged [Witness 6] stating that the invoice stated that the silicone had been applied on 19 November 2019. [Tenant 1] also put to [Witness 6] that the text messages [Tenant 1] had sent to the property manager on 29 November 2019 referring to the silicone being applied on 19 November 2019 failing. [Witness 6] confirmed his initial evidence that he had applied silicone after 19 November 2019, and before the end of November 2019. [Witness 6] stated where there was a “call back” soon afterward, and before the invoice had been generated, that he would amend the draft invoice. In this case while he had done so, he had neglected to change the date from 19 November 2019.
I accept [Witness 6]’s evidence and explanation. I also note that [Tenant 1]’s second text message sent 29 November 2019 does not in fact refer to silicone, and states: “...and the leak in the shower is still running all over the floor”. I am satisfied that the silicone was more likely than not applied to the shower after [Tenant 1]’s second text message.
I accept [Witness 6]’s evidence that he visited the property twice in November 2019 and on the second occasion fixed the leak to the outside of the shower. As stated, there is insufficient evidence that [Tenant 1] raised it as an ongoing issue in his tenancy.
The second part of [Tenant 1]’s claim concerns a cracked tile which he claims was not addressed. The landlord stated that the crack tile was not raised during [Tenant 1]’s tenancy.
[Tenant 1] has referred to a plumber’s invoice dated December 2021, which also includes the statement “we checked over the shower and found the shower needs to be looked at by a tiler, the grout is falling out and there is a cracked tile”. However, [Tenant 1]’s tenancy ended on 22 April 2021. This evidence is relevant to [Tenant 2]’s claim relating to the bathroom.
There is no documentary evidence produced such as text message, emails, letters, notices etc corroborating [Tenant 1]’s claim that he raised the broken tile during his tenancy. After hearing from the parties and considering the evidence, I am not satisfied that [Tenant 1] raised either the leak to the side of the shower as an ongoing issue, or the cracked tile during his tenancy. [Tenant 2]’s tenancy
[Tenant 2]’s claim relating to the maintenance of the upstairs bathroom also concerns the leak from the side of the shower, and the cracked tile, both of which she claims the landlord failed to address, resulting in the formation of black mould that adversely affected the health of the occupants.
There are no issues raised concerning the upstairs bathroom in the pre tenancy inspection report.
[Tenant 2] recalls that a hairline crack was reported to the property manager at an inspection in January 2022. The landlord states that they sent a plumber who advised that the crack was cosmetic and did not affect the integrity of the shower as there was a water proofing membrane layer beneath the tiles. The landlord states silicone was applied to the crack.
[Tenant 2] states that the property manager then sent a tiler who she claims rejected the job because it was “too big.” [Tenant 2] states that the landlord then sent a builder who said that “they did not do bathrooms.” Toward the end of the tenancy, [Tenant 1] states that he lifted the cracked tile and took a photograph which he has produced. The actual tile has also been produced. The tile has remnants of silicone.
[Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] both stated that they had raised the leak to the side of the shower and the cracked tile on numerous occasions during [Tenant 2]’s tenancy, but neither was resolved.
[Tenant 1] has produced a photograph of a section of skirting board and section of wall adjacent to the leak which he states show signs of rot and black mould. The photographs produced by [Tenant 1] have all been taken around July 2022 and at the end of [Tenant 2]’s tenancy, and do not show inside the shower where the leak is said to have occurred.
[Tenant 1] has also produced a photograph taken at the end of [Tenant 2]’s tenancy of an area of wall and ceiling he claims is in the lounge directly below the shower showing the presence of black mould.
The landlord states that the area of ceiling and wall is not below the shower but is beneath the upstairs toilet which had leaked and was repaired previously on 09 February 2021.
[Witness 1] stated that she witnessed “black mould” in the upstairs bathroom but does not describe when she first saw the mould or its location.
[Witness 1] stated that she had been present when a contractor visited but could not recall whether it was for the bathroom. That she did witness one of the children with an injured foot which she had been told by the tenant had been caused by the broken tile. [Witness 1] stated that she had been present at a house inspection although could not recall the date, and that she had heard one of the tenants mentioning the gas hobs, bi fold door and bathroom. She states that she recalled the property manager going upstairs but did not see where he went upstairs.
Following the filing of their application, the tenant states that on 27 February 2023, they received a text message from a contractor referring to work being completed on the upstairs bathroom. The tenant states that the text message had been sent to them in error. This was followed by another text message in March 2023 concerning the repair of the bi fold doors, again sent to them in error. [Tenant 1] states that they had visited the contractor’s website and discovered that they specialised in repairing flood damaged properties. [Tenant 1] has produced a photograph taken from the website of a completely stripped out bathroom showing mould damage behind the wall lining and under the floor.
The photographs are not of the property. The landlord is of the view that this is an example of [Tenant 1] seeking to mislead the Tribunal. [Tenant 1] states that it is an example of what the damage likely was. The landlord states that the contractor is one that they regularly use and undertake “general maintenance” work. The landlord has not commented on the nature of work that may have been completed on the bathroom post tenancy but states that the shower has since been replaced.
The landlord states the tenant had used force to lift the tile out, causing damage, and that the photograph does not accurately reflect the nature or extent of the original issue. [Tenant 1] denies that he used force, stating that he simply lifted it out. [Tenant 1] stated that since December 2021 at least four or five contractors had inspected the shower, but that none would “touch” the job, and one refused to apply silicone to the cracked tile.
Despite the cracked tile the tenant used the shower and appears to have continued to do so after removing the tile completely.
During an inspection on 18 July 2022, just before the end of the tenancy, [Tenant 2] stated that she mentioned to [The senior property manager] that she could hear water running down a wall. No water was detected by [The senior property manager]. The landlord states unless the pipes in a house are sound proofed that it is not uncommon to hear water running through them, especially if they run from the level above. [Witness 6] also stated unless the pipes in a house are sound proofed that it is not uncommon to hear water running through them, especially if they run from the level above.
The tenant has produced brief written statements from [Witness 7], builder, [Witness 8], maintenance contractor, and [Witness 2], plumber.
Each witness has been sent two photographs, one showing the wall and skirting board just outside the shower, and another showing, what they have been told by the tenant is an area of ceiling and wall in the lounge directly below the shower, taken at the end of [Tenant 2]’s tenancy.
Each statement is the same and states: “I have looked at the photographs below and from my experience within the building industry with this type of environment. I have determined that this black mould, which is seeping from the upstairs shower – bathroom and walls down with through the room below.”
None of the witnesses have been to the property. Each have based their assessment on photographs and what the tenant has told them. The area of ceiling / wall in the second photograph is, in fact, not below the shower.
[Witness 2] also made a pre-recorded video statement. He stated that he is a plumber with 10 years’ experience. In the video, he firstly referred to the photograph showing the skirting board and section of wall, stating that in his opinion the substance was mould. He stated that it was likely that water had made its way from the corner of the shower under the bottom of the skirting board and into the wall. [Witness 2] then referred to the second photograph of the wall / ceiling. Believing that it was below the shower, he expressed the opinion that the substance shown was likely mould caused from water seeping under the skirting board in the bathroom above.
[Witness 3], surveyor, attended and gave oral evidence speaking to a report that he had previously prepared. Like the previous witnesses, he had not been to the property and had based his opinion on the same two photographs sent to [Witness 3], [Witness 7], and [Witness 2], and another showing the inside of the shower with the tile removed, taken by the landlord at the end of [Tenant 2]’s tenancy.
[Witness 3] stated that he had been asked by the tenant to provide an opinion on the three photographs: a) broken tile within a tiled shower, b) a black substance on a wall / ceiling junction, and c) a wall area on the side of the shower.
Concerning photograph, a) [Witness 3] stated his opinion was that the area below the damaged tile appeared to be damp, suggesting water was able to migrate below before it broke. [Witness 3] stated that from the photographs he could not determine whether there was a moisture barrier. [Witness 3] was unaware of the allegation that the tenant may have pried the tile free and that the shower had continued to be used after the tile was removed and before the end of the tenancy. [Witness 3] added that no visible mould could be seen beneath the tile but that left untreated there was a high likelihood of mould forming.
Regarding photograph b), [Witness 3] stated the substance along the wall / ceiling junction was likely mould which had formed when the protective paint coating had failed or was incomplete. The mould was likely caused by condensation. It was not possible to identify the type of mould, and it could be removed by washing.
Concerning photograph c), [Witness 3] stated that there was visible damage to the timber skirting board. [Witness 3] did not identify the source of the damage but stated it was consistent with water leaking from showers and was not considered a condensation. [Witness 3] stated he had been told by [Tenant 1] that the contractor who repaired the leak in 2019 had witnessed the damage. [Witness 3] stated that the section of wall directly outside the shower had been water damaged causing calcification and blistering. [Witness 3] stated the small patch of mould appeared to be toxigenic and of a type that could be harmful, but without actual testing he could not confirm this. [Witness 3] also noted that no moisture testing had been carried out.
In cross examination [Witness 3] stated that the substance on the ceiling / wall may not have been caused from above. He was unsure whether the water proofing membranes used at the time the property was constructed in 2004 were reliable as they are now. [Witness 3] accepted that it was a building code and council requirement to have one installed. [Witness 3] stated it was possible that water may have been migrating through any hole in the side of the shower for some time undetected before causing any obvious damage. [Witness 3] stated mould can be present but remain undetected within wall and floor cavities for some time. [Witness 3] added that mould is most harmful when it is dry, and the spores can dissipate.
The landlord stated they believed that the leak to the side of the shower had been successfully repaired in November 2019, and that there was no evidence the matter being raised as an ongoing issue by either [Tenant 1] or [Tenant 2].
The landlord has produced photographs of the bathroom taken at routine inspections on 19 January 2022 and 12 April 2022. Both show a small plastic bin obscuring the skirting board and partially obscuring the area of wall concerned. What can be seen of the wall does not show the presence of mould or calcification.
[The senior property manager] stated that on 18 July 2022, [Tenant 2] had stated that she could hear water running down the inside of a wall. [The senior property manager] stated that both himself and [Property manager 2], who was also present, could not detect any issue, and that the substance on the ceiling in the lounge had not been brought to their attention.
[The senior property manager] states that it was at this inspection that the cracked tile was raised for the first time. [The senior property manager] has produced photographs taken of the shower and cracked tile during the inspection. The tile is in place, lying flat, with a small visible chip. [The senior property manager] states that the landlord engaged a plumber to inspect the shower. On 01 August 2022, the plumber attended and applied silicone to the area. [The senior property manager] states that the repair was temporary, that the landlord had been advised that the crack did not pose any imminent risk of leaking, as the shower had a waterproof membrane, but that due to age and wear that re tiling the shower would be the best solution.
[The senior property manager] accepts the tenant’s evidence that two contractors inspected the job but that neither wanted it. [The senior property manager] states that after 01 August 2022, that there was no evidence that the tenant had raised it as an ongoing issue. [The senior property manager] stated that since the end of the tenancy the landlord had managed to find a contractor and that the shower had since been replaced.
[Witness 6] stated that he had not attended to the cracked tile but had been back through records showing that another plumber from his company had attended and applied silicon to the cracked tile on 01 August 2022. [Witness 6] cannot give any direct evidence on that matter. [Tenant 2]’s tenancy - decision on bathroom
The evidence shows that the skirting board and affected area of wall was obscured from view. Unless the damage was pointed out, I am not satisfied that the damage to the wall was obvious to a property manager.
Although I accept that the damage to skirting board and wall have likely been from water leaking from the shower, in the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately. The claim relating to the leak is dismissed.
Despite what both parties assert, the documentary evidence shows the cracked tile was reported to the landlord in December 2021 by the plumber who replaced the gas hob. The plumber’s advice was that the grout was showing signs of wear and tear and there was a cracked tile. The landlord sent contractors to provide quotes, but none were interested. The email sent by [Tenant 2] to [Property manager 2] dated 08 June 2022 does not mention the cracked tile or the leak. However, I accept that the issue with the tile was ongoing. The tile was then raised again at the inspection on 18 July 2022. The date that silicone was first applied to the tile is uncertain. Silicone was applied to the crack for a second time on 01 August 2022.
It is the obligation of the landlord to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable condition and to respond and remedy issues arising within a reasonable period. In this case the cracked tile was first brought to the landlord’s attention in December 2021. Although there was a temporary repair the matter remained unresolved until the end of the tenancy. Despite their endeavours, the landlord has failed to remedy the matter.
There is insufficient evidence to find that the crack caused any mould. While it is likely that water made its way through the crack in the tile, I am not satisfied that water leaked through the waterproof membrane, and if it did leak through the membrane, it was likely after [Tenant 1] had fully removed the tile.
The occupants continued to use the shower. There is insufficient evidence of any injury caused to the occupants.
While in my view there has been a loss of amenity suffered by [Tenant 2] it was not significant. I award the tenant damages of $500.00. Has the landlord failed to maintain the dishwasher - [Tenant 1]’s tenancy
The property was provided with two half sized dishwashers. On or about 14 November 2019, [Tenant 1] raised an issue concerning one of the dishwashers. The unit was replaced soon afterward. [Tenant 1] stated that the contractor who replaced the unit expressed the view that as both were the same age, the second unit should also be replaced. There is no evidence that the second dishwasher had a fault at that time.
[Tenant 1] stated that sometime later the second dishwasher developed a fault. [Tenant 1] is unable to refer to any documentary evidence reporting the matter. [Tenant 1] recalled “ongoing verbal communication” but is unable to provide any dates.
[Property manager 1] stated that at the end of [Tenant 2]’s tenancy he tested both dishwashers and there was no issue with either.
There is insufficient evidence to be satisfied that the second dishwasher had a fault, and if it did, that [Tenant 1] raised it with the landlord. [Tenant 1]’s claim concerning the dishwasher is dismissed. [Tenant 2]’s tenancy
On 08 June 2022, [Tenant 2] sent an email to [Property manager 2], who had taken over as property manager from the end of 2021, advising that the remaining original dishwasher had not been working for a couple of months and explained the fault. [Tenant 1] stated that the dishwasher had an intermittent fault.
[Property manager 2] acknowledged that the issue with the dishwasher had been advised on 08 June 2022 but claimed that the landlord had sent a contractor who had then reported that there was no issue with the dishwasher, suggesting user error. There is no invoice produced for this visit. The landlord has also referred to [Property manager 1] testing of both dishwashers in September 2022. The landlord also state that the new tenant has not raised any issue with the dishwasher.
[Tenant 2] states that the contractor who visited focused on the oven and did not look at the dishwasher. It is unclear why the contractor did not look at both appliances, and why [Tenant 2] did not invite them to do so at the time.
Based on the evidence before me, I am unable to determine if the dishwasher had any fault and I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately. The claim is dismissed. Has the landlord failed to provide and maintain the waste disposal unit - [Tenant 1]’s tenancy
The property had a waste disposal unit in the kitchen. [Tenant 1] states that soon after the start of his tenancy, the unit developed a fault. [Tenant 1] stated he advised the property manager, who has since left the employment of the landlord, advised him that it would be repaired. [Tenant 1] stated a contractor visited on or about 15 April 2019. [Tenant 1] does not appear to have been present at the time. Instead of repairing the unit the contractor removed it and replaced the plumbing.
[Tenant 1] stated that he advised the property manager that he believed the unit would be replaced and was not happy. [Tenant 1] stated he was advised by the property manager that the owner of the property had deemed the waste disposal unit to be non-essential. [Tenant 1] stated that the waste disposal was a chattel which had attracted the family to the property and that he had had a conversation with the property manager about reducing the rent for loss of amenity but that there was no response. There is no documentary evidence of [Tenant 1] raising the matter again.
The landlord stated they had no written record of [Tenant 1] expressing dissatisfaction. [Property manager 1] stated that it was the landlord’s practice to keep written records of any matters raised concerning the property. I am unsure as to the accuracy of this evidence. The landlord stated that any inconvenience would have been minor and mitigated by the Council’s new [redacted] kerbside waste collection. [The directors] stated that had [Tenant 1] wanted the unit to be replaced that it would have been arranged. However, [The director] was not the property manager and there is no evidence that the matter was raised with her directly.
There is no chattels list provided with [Tenant 1]’s tenancy agreement. The list attached to [Tenant 2]’s agreement refers to “Sink / disposal unit,” but there appears to be no dispute that the waste disposal unit was a chattel in [Tenant 1]’s tenancy only.
After hearing from [Tenant 1], I find, more likely than not, that at the material time he expected the unit to be repaired, and more likely than not expressed his dissatisfaction to the property manager when it was removed. I am also satisfied that [Tenant 1] asked for the unit to be replaced or a reduce rent be considered. I am satisfied that having provided the waste disposal unit as a chattel, by removing it without consultation with the tenant as to replacement or other options that the landlord has breached their obligation to provide and maintain the property, in this case the chattel. The tenant has not continued to have the use of something that he had bargained for at the commencement of the tenancy.
Concerning the extent of [Tenant 1]’s loss of amenity. Having been advised that the unit would not be replaced and having no response to his requests for a rent reduction, I am not satisfied that he pursued the matter further. This suggests that at the material time the matter may not have been as pressing as [Tenant 1] now claims. I accept the landlord’s submission that the matter likely resulted in a minor inconvenience. Taking these matters into account I award [Tenant 1] compensation for loss of amenity of $250.00 [Tenant 2]’s tenancy
The claim has also been raised by [Tenant 2]. There was no waste disposal unit at the commencement of [Tenant 2]’s tenancy. One was not provided with the tenancy as a chattel. [Tenant 2]’s claim concerning the waste disposal unit is dismissed. Has the landlord failed to maintain the oven - [Tenant 1]’s tenancy
One of [Tenant 1]’s claims is that the landlord has failed to maintain the oven. In his written submissions filed with [Tenant 2]’s application, [Tenant 1] refers to the oven developing a fault “12 months ago”. This squarely puts any issue arising with the oven in [Tenant 2]’s tenancy and not [Tenant 1]’s. [Tenant 2]’s tenancy
On 08 June 2022, [Tenant 2] reported by email to [Property manager 2] an issue with the oven.
[Tenant 2] stated that the fault was intermittent and while it did not affect the “plain or ordinary usage,” it had an effect on “gourmet cooking.”
A contractor visited an inspected the oven, and the dishwasher. [Tenant 2] believed that the contractor reported to the landlord that the oven should be replaced. [Property manager 2] denies this and believes that the oven had been repaired although has been unable to produce the invoice. [Tenant 2] stated that the matter was not resolved, and that the oven had the fault until the end of the tenancy. [Tenant 2] stated that she had been advised by the present tenants that the oven had a problem.
[The senior property manager] and [Property manager 1] both state that they have personally tested the oven and have not detected any issues and deny that the present tenant has raised any issues with the oven.
On the evidence before me I am unable to determine what fault, if any, the oven had, and I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately. The claim is dismissed. Has the landlord failed to maintain the lino and carpet - [Tenant 1]’s tenancy
[Tenant 1] has produced photographs of some areas of carpet which he stated he took in July 2022. The photographs show areas of carpet in some of the rooms, and on the stairs. [Tenant 1] states that the carpet is clearly rotten, and on the stairs, in a condition posing a health and safety risk. [Tenant 1] stated that the occupants had suffered injuries although no evidence has been produced. [Tenant 1] stated at the commencement of his tenancy the property manager had advised that the carpet would be replaced. [Tenant 1] also claims that where the lino met the carpet in the kitchen / dining room had lifted causing a trip hazard. There are no photographs of this damage. [Tenant 1] stated that he could not recall when he had raised the issue but felt that it may have been early 2021. There is no documentary record.
[The senior property manager] accepts that the carpet is showing signs of wear and tear. [The director] doubts that the property manager advised that the carpet would be replaced, stating that the landlord does not replace carpet during a tenancy.
There is insufficient evidence to be satisfied that [Tenant 1] raised any issues with the carpet or lino during his tenancy. There are no photographs of the lino. While the photographs of the carpet show wear and tear commensurate with its age, 15 years, my objective assessment is that it does not necessarily pose a health and safety risk. The claim that the landlord has failed to maintain the carpet and lino during [Tenant 1]’s tenancy is dismissed. [Tenant 2]’s tenancy
[Tenant 2]’s claim concerning the carpet and lino is like that of [Tenant 1]. [Tenant 2] states that she raised it during an inspection with [The senior property manager] and [Property manager 2] on 18 July 2022. The landlord states that the carpet was raised for the first time during the inspection. [The senior property manager] states that the damaged areas had likely been caused by carpet beetle that are now deceased or departed. While he agreed that the carpet was well past its useful lifespan [The senior property manager] stated that it did not pose a health and safety risk. [The senior property manager] stated that [Tenant 1] showed him the metal joiner between the vinyl flooring and the carpet in the dining room and was advised by [Tenant 1] that he had already hammered the joiner flat. [The senior property manager] denies that his attention was drawn to the stairs at the inspection and that the photographs did not show damage posing a risk to health and safety.
I am not satisfied that the carpet was raised by [Tenant 2] until the inspection on 18 July 2023, which is near the end of the tenancy. As stated, the carpet is showing general signs of wear and tear. Based on the photographs I am not satisfied that the carpet on the stairs posed a health and safety risk. I am not satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligations and the claim is dismissed. Has the landlord failed to provide an approved form of heating in the main living room - Both [Tenant 1]s and [Tenant 2]’s tenancy
The Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) for both tenancies come into effect of 01 July 2025. However, in both tenancies, the landlord must comply with Regulation 6 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 and provide and maintain an approved form of heating in the main living room.
As stated, the property has an open plan living / dining room opening into a second lounge space via bi fold doors, which the tenant has stated they kept closed. There is a flued gas heater in the second lounge. The tenant states that the heater was insufficient to heat what they consider to be the main living room, comprising the dining / living room and second lounge.
The tenant also stated that at the commencement of the tenancy they had been advised by the property manager that there was underfloor heating, but that there was none. No documentary evidence, such as property advertisements have been produced to support this claim. It is not a feature recorded in [Tenant 2]’s pre tenancy inspection report.
The HHS report dated 09 September 2020 also deals with heating. The report concludes that a 4.5 kW (Kilowatt) heat pump would be required to heat the main living room. The assessor has determined the floor size of the main living area to be 26m2. It is unclear whether this necessarily includes all the rooms that the tenant claims make up the main living area. The tenant has not produced measurements for each room.
In response to the tenant’s concern that the heating was inadequate the landlord arranged for a certified gas fitter to inspect the heater. In a certificate dated 03 March 2022, the gas fitter records that the heater complies with the building code and has an output of 3.65 kPa (Kilopascal), which is equal to an output of 12kW.
On the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to comply with the Housing Improvement Regulations concerning heating and the claim is dismissed. Has the landlord failed to comply with the insulation standards - Both [Tenant 1]’s and [Tenant 2]’s tenancy
Both tenants claim that the landlord has breached their 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 (Insulation Regulations).
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.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
[Tenant 1] stated that in or around June 2022 a contractor visited the property to measure up for a heat pump in the main lounge / living room. During the visit, both [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] claim that the contractor advised that they could not provide a quote because they could not access the ceiling void above the lounge / living room, due to the absence of an access point. [Tenant 1] stated the contractor concluded that as there was no access that there must not be any insulation.
The landlord stated that to the best of their knowledge the property is insulation compliant. The landlord has produced an HHS report dated 09 September 2020, prepared by an independent contractor, who states that the property is insulation compliant.
The burden of proof is on the tenant to establish that the property does not comply with the Insulation Regulations. Apart from the tenant’s hearsay evidence as to what the contractor has told them, there is no other evidence. In the absence of reliable evidence to the contrary it is difficult to go behind the HHS report.
The claim that the landlord has failed to meet the Insulation Regulations is dismissed. Has the landlord failed to maintain the gardens - [Tenant 2]’s tenancy only
[Tenant 2] has produced photographs of what she claims is woolly nightshade in the garden. To the untrained eye the plant concerned looks like a well- established and innocuous shrub. In his affidavit [Witness 5] states that he is an arborist and outdoor maintenance person and that he has known [Tenant 1] since 1981.
[Witness 5] states that on 22 January 2022 he visited the property to conduct gardening work for [Tenant 1]. During the visit he states that he noticed woolly nightshade in the garden, which he concluded had likely come from a nearby gully. I am advised that the gully is council land. [Witness 5] states that he also noticed the presence of privet which he states can cause respiratory issues in some people. [Witness 5] stated these plants, if not removed properly, can grow back causing further issues. I have been advised that woolly nightshade is considered a noxious weed.
[Witness 1] states that she was aware that there was woolly nightshade and privet in the garden, and that she recalled the tenant’s children becoming unwell during a certain period of the year. Apart from a school attendance record, there is no documentary evidence from someone suitably qualified confirming the cause of any unwellness of the tenants or any other occupant.
[Tenant 2] took a photograph of the offending plant and sent it to the property manager. A short time later, a contractor arrived. [Tenant 2] states that the contractor would not touch the woolly nightshade. Another contractor visited the property on 08 February 2022 and removed the plants. [Tenant 2] states that the contractor disposed of the woolly nightshade by throwing it into the gully, which she claims was inappropriate.
Whether or not the plants were responsible for respiratory unwellness in the occupants is not the issue. The issue is whether, having been advised of the presence of the plants concerned, the landlord failed to respond appropriately. The landlord states that they responded as soon as the matter was raised, and that following the removal of the plants on 08 February 2022, that it was not raised again until it was included in [Tenant 2]’s application filed on 25 October 2022. This is not disputed by [Tenant 2].
[Tenant 2] was unaware of the presence of these plants until advised of their presence by [Witness 5]. If [Tenant 1] or [Tenant 2] were in fact aware before that, it was not raised with the landlord.
After hearing from the parties and considering the evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed in their obligations. Once advised, they have responded, and the offending plants were removed. At the material time, [Tenant 2] did not raise any concerns regarding the conduct of the contractor in removing the plants, and the matter has been raised again for the first time at this hearing. The claim that the landlord has failed to maintain the grounds in a reasonable condition is dismissed. Costs
Under Section 102 (4) the Tribunal has a discretion to award an applicant who has been partly successful reimbursement of their filing fee. In this case both landlord, and tenant have been partly successful. As ordering reimbursement of the filing fee to one party would be cancelled out by the award to the other, I decline to make any order. Suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord seeks name suppression. As the landlord has been substantially successful, they are granted name suppression.
Both [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] seek name suppression, however neither has been wholly or substantially successful.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
In the case of Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZSC 135 at [2]-[3],[13], and [18], the Supreme Court stated the principle of open justice was fundamental to the common law system of civil and criminal justice. The Court stated that it was well established that there were circumstances in which the interests of justice required departure from the general principle, but only to the extent required to serve the administration of justice. The Court referred to the administration of justice standard as capable of accommodating the particular circumstances of individual cases with consideration given to the broader public interest. The Court went onto endorse the principle in ASB Bank Ltd v AB [2010] 3 NZLR 427 (HC), stating, that there must be specific adverse consequences sufficient to justify an exception to the rule, adding that the threshold was a high one.
There is evidence before the Tribunal confirming that [Tenant 2] suffers a cognitive decline due to a head injury and concussion. Although [Tenant 2] was represented by [Tenant 1] during the hearing, she exhibited signs of heightened sensitivity to stress. [Tenant 2] states that publishing her name will adversely impact on her physical and emotional health and well-being. Having observed [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] in court and based on the material before me I accept that submission. Despite not sharing a surname [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] are in a partnership. Naming [Tenant 1] and allowing the publication of the address of the property may inadvertently reveal [Tenant 2]’s identity. While [Tenant 1]’s conduct regarding the fraudulent email could be grounds for denying suppression, it might be subject to proceedings in another jurisdiction, making it inappropriate to deny suppression in this case.
I am satisfied that there are grounds to exercise the discretion in section 95A (4) of the Act and order suppression of both tenant’s names and the address of the property.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.

There are no monetary orders made against [Tenant 1].

[The landlord/s] must pay [Tenant 1] $ 1,250.00 immediately, as set out in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s].

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $4,837.42 immediately, as set out in the table below:

Reasons

On 22 August 2022, the landlord filed a claim for termination due to rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. The first hearing, initially scheduled for telephone hearing on 09 September 2022, was adjourned and rescheduled for a face-to-face hearing on 03 October 2022.

On 03 October 2022, the landlord advised that the tenant, [Tenant 2] had, since filing the application, vacated the property. The landlord requested to amend their application to rent arrears, refund of the bond, break lease costs, and rent until the commencement of the new tenancy, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The application was granted, and the matter adjourned to allow [Tenant 2] reasonable time to consider the amended application. [Tenant 1], representing [Tenant 2] also advised that [Tenant 2] intended to file a counterclaim.

On 23 February 2019, [Tenant 1] and the landlord entered into a fixed term tenancy agreement to end on 22 April 2021. On 23 April 2021, [Tenant 2] and the landlord entered a fixed term tenancy agreement to end on 23 April 2023.

[Tenant 2]’s counterclaim, filed on 25 October 2022, covered both tenancies, [Tenant 1]’s from 23 February 2019 to 22 April 2021 and [Tenant 2]’s from 23 April 2021 until the end of the tenancy.

At a Case Management Conference on 06 December 2022, the Tribunal directed that two separate applications should be made, one for each tenancy. The parties requested that the claims be heard together, as they involved the same witnesses. The Tribunal agreed. Also relevant was [Tenant 1]’s representation of [Tenant 2] on medical grounds.

On 21 December 2022, the Tribunal heard evidence relating to the landlord’s claim. The matter was adjourned part heard. An application relating to [Tenant 1]’s tenancy from 23 February 2019 to 22 April 2022 was filed on 03 February 2023. Delays occurred due to insufficient time, the unwellness of the parties, and other unavailability. The final hearing of the evidence was concluded on 28 August 2023. The decision was reserved.

The Tribunal has heard evidence from [The senior property manager], senior property manager, [The directors], who are directors of the landlord company, and [Property manager 1] and [Property manager 2]. [Senior property manager], [Property manager 1], and [Property manager 2] were directly involved in the tenancy of [Tenant 2], while [The directors] were not directly involved in either tenancy. The Tribunal has considered [The directors] evidence to be opinion evidence and given it the appropriate weight.

Apart from several written submissions, and in [Tenant 2]’s claim an affidavit, both tenant’s provided minimal documentary evidence in support of their claims, such as texts, emails, and letters sent to the landlord. Despite both being dissatisfied with the landlord’s management, they did not issue any 14-day notice requiring the landlord to remedy any defect or damage during both tenancies.

[Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] both gave oral evidence. The Tribunal has also heard from [Witness 1], lawyer and whanau friend to the tenant, [Witness 2], plumber, and [Witness 3], building surveyor. The tenant also produced affidavits from [Witness 4], sales executive, and [Witness 5], arborist.

The evidence of [Witness 4] can carry very little weight. [Witness 4] made general statements that the property is cold, and that he had seen woolly nightshade in the garden. The rest of his evidence is based solely on information provided by the tenant.

Throughout the hearings, and in their closing submissions, both parties complained about each other’s conduct. During the hearings both parties required regular reminders to refrain from speaking over and interrupting each other. [Tenant 1] complained that [The directors] had sat beside and “coached” the property managers, stating, “This behaviour seems really unfair as [The directors] are exerting undue influence over their staff’s statements and potentially affecting the Tribunals decision making process.” Whether [The directors] support of their property managers during the hearing has added to the landlord’s defence of the claims made against them is debatable. It has not influenced the Tribunal’s decision-making process. I acknowledge [Tenant 1]’s concerns but put them to one side. [Tenant 1] also complained the tenant had been forced to “endure constant whispering from [The directors] and their property managers.” Both parties engaged in whispered conversation while the other party gave evidence.

Despite these challenges, both parties have had the opportunity to call all their witnesses, present all their evidence, and make full submissions uninterrupted.

Both parties have challenged the others credibility. The landlord complained that [Tenant 1] had sent an email posing as the landlord to a contractor, seeking disclosure of material. The email concerned was produced. The landlord submitted that this was deceptive and dishonest. [Tenant 1] accepted that he had done so, was unapologetic, and stated that he had been frustrated by the landlord’s lack of disclosure, and the Tribunal’s apparent inability to make orders for discovery. [Tenant 1] in turn complained that the landlord had contacted two of their witnesses, [Witness 2] and [Witness 3] and sought to confirm their credentials and experience. I have put these matters to one side. The factual findings in this matter have been made based on the objective assessment of the oral evidence of the parties, the other witnesses, the physical and documentary evidence, including photographs, and written submissions. The landlord’s claims

The landlord’s claims are that [Tenant 2] owes rent arrears, having broken the fixed term agreement, is liable for rent until the landlord entered into a new tenancy, and is liable for reasonable costs associated with the reletting of the property. There are no claims made against [Tenant 1]. [Tenant 1]’s claims

[Tenant 1]’s claims covering the period 23 February 2019 to 22 April 2021 are that: (i)The landlord has failed to maintain the alarm system, (ii)The landlord has failed to maintain a set of bi fold doors between a second lounge and the dining / living room, (iii)The landlord has failed to maintain the built - in vacuum cleaning system, (iv)The landlord has failed to maintain the gas cooking hob, (v)The landlord has failed to maintain the lighting throughout the property, (vi)The landlord has failed to maintain the upstairs bathroom, (vii)The landlord has failed to maintain the dishwasher, (viii)The landlord has failed to provide and maintain the waste disposal unit, (ix)The landlord has failed to maintain the oven, (x)The landlord has failed to maintain the lino and carpet, (xi)The landlord has failed to provide an approved form of heating in the main living room, (xii)The landlord has failed to comply with the insulation standards,

The claims at (i) – (x) are made under section 45(1)(b) of the Act. In both tenancies the Healthy Homes Standards came into effect of 01 July 2025. The claim at (xi) is made under section 45(1)(c) and Regulation 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947. The claim at (xii) is made under section 45(1)(c) and the Residential tenancies (Smoke alarm and insulation) Regulations 2016.

[Tenant 1] is claiming compensation, which he has not quantified, on the basis that the breaches by the landlord have, “disrupted [the] peace quiet and enjoyment of life and added stress to our family.” [Tenant 1]’s claim is that the landlord, by breaching their obligations under section 45(1)(b) and (c), has interfered with the reasonable peace and comfort of the tenant under section 38(1) of the Act. [Tenant 2]’s claim

[Tenant 2]’s claims are the same as [Tenant 1]’s except for an additional claim that the landlord has failed to maintain the grounds in a reasonable condition. Similarly, [Tenant 2]’s claim for compensation is based on the alleged breaches amounting to an interference with the reasonable peace and comfort of the tenant.

The onus of proving these claims rests with the respective applicants. The standard of proof required in on the balance of probabilities. Each party must establish, more likely than not, that the other has breached the tenancy agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Landlord’s claim

Dealing firstly with the landlord’s claim against [Tenant 2] for rent arrears, reasonable costs associated with breaking a fixed term tenancy, and rent until the entering of a new tenancy agreement.

The tenancy of [Tenant 2] commenced on 23 April 2021 and was for a fixed term to end on 23 April 2023. On or about 22 August 2022, [Tenant 2] approached the landlord about ending the fixed term. The tenant attempted to give the landlord notice to end the fixed term, citing a failure on the part of the landlord to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.

On or about 23 August 2023, the landlord responded that there was no provision in the agreement or the Act for the termination of the fixed term by notice. If the tenant wished to bring the fixed term to an end, they would need to complete an agreement, the terms of which reflected the provisions of the Act.

On 26 August 2022, the tenant advised the landlord they refused to agree the terms, which included liability for rent until a new tenancy was entered, and costs associated with re letting the property. The tenant advised that they intended vacating the property on 16 September 2022, which was later extended to 23 September 2023 due to whanau unwellness.

On 27 September 2022, the landlord visited the property and discovered it vacant. The landlord then advertised the property for rent, and after due diligence, entered into a new agreement commencing 21 October 2022. A copy of the new tenancy has been produced. No rent payments were made after 04 August 2023. The landlord has produced a rent summary showing the rent arrears on 23 September 2022 amounted to $4,240.71. The rent owing to the commencement of the new tenancy is $ 7,100.71.

When entering a fixed term tenancy, the tenant is liable for the rent until the end of that fixed term unless the parties otherwise agree in the tenancy agreement. There are no provisions in the Act allowing a party to unilaterally give notice to end a fixed term. There is a provision in the Act enabling a tenant to give notice not to continue with a periodic tenancy at the end of the fixed term, although that does not apply in this case.

Section 50(1)(d) provides that a tenancy may be terminated where the tenant surrenders the tenancy to the landlord with the landlords written consent, in other words they agree in writing to end the tenancy. Fixed term tenancy agreements usually contain a term mirroring section 50(1)(d) allowing the parties to agree to bring a fixed term to an end. When parties agree under section 50(1)(d), the landlord may seek reasonable costs associated with reletting, as specified in section 44A (1) of the Act. This is also a provision usually contained in any agreement.

The relevant clause contained in the tenancy agreement states, “Fixed term tenancy: if this is a tenancy for a fixed term and it is mutually agreed under exceptional circumstances that the tenant will be released, it is agreed that the tenant will pay for all costs and time of [The property management company] to relet the property, in addition to continuing to pay rent until the day before the new tenancy commences”.

By vacating the property before the end of the fixed term without the agreement of the landlord, the tenant has breached to terms of the agreement, and the provisions of the Act.

While [Tenant 2] may be held liable for rent arrears to 23 September 2022, and potentially the end of the fixed term on 23 April 2023, the landlord is only seeking rent to commencement of the new tenancy.

I award the landlord rent arrears to 23 September 2022, and the rent due to the start of the new tenancy on 20 October 2022, as claimed.

Regarding the costs of reletting, even though these have not been agreed upon, they are a cost incurred because of the tenant’s breach of the agreement. The landlord has produced a detailed account. The amount claimed is reasonable and awarded in full. Tenant’s claims

Both tenants claim that during their respective tenancies, the landlord failed to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.

Both [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] resided at the property during the tenancy of the other.

Section 45(1)(b) of the Act states that the landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the property and the period during which the property is likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.

The landlord’s obligation under section 45(1)(b) of the Act is to investigate and repair any defect brought to their attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what that timeframe is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right whatever the problem might be.

In each claim the respective tenants must establish the fault or damage, when it was first raised, what was the landlord’s response, was the matter satisfactory resolved within a reasonable time frame, if not why, if to resolved how many times was the matter raised, and what loss has the tenant suffered as a result. As stated, the onus is on the tenant to prove the claim.

The property was constructed in 2004 and has two stories. There are four bedrooms, an open plan dining / lounge / kitchen, a separate lounge area, a full bathroom, master bathroom ensuite, another separate toilet, a laundry room, and an internal double garage. Has the landlord failed to maintain the alarm system- [Tenant 1]’s tenancy 23 February 2019 to 22 April 2021

The property has a security alarm system. Although there is no pre tenancy inspection report provided for [Tenant 1]’s tenancy, the checklist attached to [Tenant 2]’s agreement suggests that the alarm system is a chattel.

[Tenant 1] claims despite being given the code and instructions on how to use the alarm, he couldn’t programme it, and it constantly beeped. Although, [Tenant 1] could not say exactly when it was raised, he believed that it was sometime around 27 February 2019. He raised it again in March 2019 and once more in July 2020. [Tenant 1] states a contractor visited on three occasions but was unable to remedy the issue. [Tenant 1] states that on the fourth visit, it was determined that only the original installer could stop the beeping. [Tenant 1] states the alarm was finally disconnected in April 2021, just before the end of his tenancy.

[Tenant 2]’s evidence was consistent with [Tenant 1]. [Witness 1] stated that the alarm was beeping when she visited the property around Easter 2020, and then on a return visit later that year. She was aware that it was an issue that remained unresolved for some time.

The landlord believes that they did everything possible to address the issue and that the alarm was eventually silenced. The landlord states that the contractor who attended in April 2021 initially had difficulty gaining access and they were unsure of the outcome. [Property manager 1] stated that since the end of [Tenant 2]’s tenancy he visited the property and that the alarm was working. He added that disconnecting of the monitoring function would have stopped the beeping. The landlord has produced a photograph of the alarm screen, which they state does not show any fault. [Property manager 1] states that once disconnected from the monitoring company [Tenant 1] was then free to engage with another to monitor the alarm or use it monitored. The landlord also states that if the alarm had been beeping as described that the property manager would have noted it. However, the property manager for [Tenant 1]’s tenancy no longer works for the landlord.

Based on the evidence, I am satisfied to the required standard that there has been a breach. The alarm has been provided as a chattel and on that basis the landlord was obliged to maintain it in a working order. Although they may have attempted to remedy the issue, they have ultimately been unsuccessful, and the tenant has been unable to use the alarm system provided.

Addressing the issue of compensation. In the case of Smith v Floris Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at 6, the Tribunal stated, “Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents”.

While claiming compensation on the basis that the landlord’s failure to maintain the property has interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy is possible, in this case, doing so requires the tenant not only establish a failure to maintain, but also that the failure has significantly [my emphasis] affected their ability to enjoy the property.

The Tribunals jurisdiction to award damages and compensation is set out in section 77(2)(n) of the Act: (n) to order the landlord or the tenant under any tenancy agreement to which this Act applies to pay to the other party such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any express or implied provision of the tenancy agreement or any provision of this Act.

The purpose of damages is to compensate for the actual loss incurred. The loss suffered must have arisen naturally from the breach or be a loss within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the commencement of the tenancy.

In this claim, and for others that have been proven, the loss suffered is the result of the tenant not getting what they bargained for under the agreement. Not doing so will amount to a loss of amenity. In determining the quantum of damages to be awarded the Tribunal will make an objective assessment of the value of the loss of those things the tenant had bargained for under the agreement. In this case the loss of the alarm. [Tenant 1] states the constant beeping was annoying, and the inability to set the alarm caused anxiety, especially as nearby neighbours had experienced a home invasion. I award [Tenant 1] damages for loss of amenity of $500.00 [Tenant 2]’s tenancy 22 April 2021 to 23 September 2022

The pre tenancy checklist, which was signed by [Tenant 2] on 01 April 2021, records next to the heading security alarm “op” and provides the phone number of the alarm monitoring company. There has been no evidence as to what “op” means, although I anticipate it is short for operational. There is also no evidence that [Tenant 2] attempted to use the alarm system nor that it was raised with the landlord as an ongoing issue. I am not satisfied that the alarm system was not operative at the commencement and during [Tenant 2]’s tenancy. The claim is dismissed. Has the landlord failed to maintain a set of bi fold doors between the second lounge and main living area - [Tenant 1]’s tenancy

There is a wooden bi fold door which may be used to separate a lounge area from the main lounge/ dining room / kitchen area. [Tenant 1] states at the commencement of the tenancy, the door functioned, but soon after, it started to come off its hinges and became inoperable. [Tenant 1] states that door was especially necessary in winter to regulate the heat between the two living spaces. [Tenant 1] states he informed the landlord about this issue on or about 25 November 2019. [Tenant 1] understood that a quote had been approved to repair the door. [Tenant 1] states despite attempts by four contractors, none could repair the door, and that it remained unresolved at the end of his tenancy.

[Witness 1] stated that she visited the property at least once during [Tenant 1]’s tenancy and observed that the door concerned was broken and could not be opened.

The landlord stated that on 16 January 2020, a quote had been approved to repair the door. The landlord stated that during [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2]’s tenancies approximately sixteen inspections and many visits by contractors had to be rescheduled at the request of the tenant. The tenant denied that they had intentionally delayed any work to the doors, stating that only contractors who turned up without sufficient notice would be turned away.

The landlord produced photographs taken during an inspection on 19 January 2021 which does not show any visible damage to the door. The landlord states that they have no record of the tenant raising it as an ongoing issue. [Tenant 1] states that the damage was not of a type that was visible in a photograph and that the door had been closed and wedges placed under it to keep it in place. [Tenant 1] denies not raising it, and states that he mentioned it to the property manager during inspections, who has since left the landlord.

There appears to be no dispute that the door had a fault. While the landlord appears to have initially arranged for its repair, it was not completed. The exact reason why it was not repaired during [Tenant 1]’s tenancy is however unclear. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that there has been a failure to maintain the door concerned. The inconvenience caused has resulted in a loss of amenity. For the period November 2019 to the end of [Tenant 1]’s tenancy in April 2021, I award damages of $500.00. [Tenant 2]’s tenancy

At the end of [Tenant 1]’s tenancy and prior to that of [Tenant 2]’s the landlord conducted an inspection and completed a pre tenancy inspection report. This has been produced dated 01 April 2021. The report does not record there being any issues with the door concerned. The landlord states that the report was completed by a property manager and then sent to [Tenant 2] who was invited to record any other matters arising. [Tenant 2] states that she was under pressure at the material time and signed without noting any of the matters from [Tenant 1]’s tenancy outstanding, such as the bi fold doors. Despite failing to record it in the pre tenancy checklist [Tenant 2] states that she continued to raise the matter with the property manager. [Tenant 2] has produced an email to [Property manager 2] dated 08 June 2022, referring to the bi fold door as an outstanding issue. Despite the email being acknowledged [Tenant 2] states that nothing was done.

[Witness 1] stated that she visited the property during [Tenant 2]’s tenancy and witnessed that the issue concerning the door appeared to remain unresolved.

The landlord acknowledged receiving the email dated 08 June 2022 and accepted that the bi fold door had some “dysfunction”. [The senior property manager] stated that the landlord had sent contractors to inspect the door. [The senior property manager] stated that he visited the property with another property manager and conducted an inspection on 18 July 2022.

[The senior property manager] accepted that there was a discussion about the door but that because the tenant had placed furniture in front the door, he could not determine the nature of the fault. [The senior property manager] stated that during the visit [Tenant 1], on behalf of [Tenant 2] said, “Don’t worry about fixing the doors as we keep them closed and have a shelf in front of them,” or words to that effect.

[Tenant 1] stated that any comment about the doors was likely out of frustration. [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] state that as the door could not be operated that they gave up trying and kept the door closed.

[Property manager 2], who accompanied [The senior property manager] at the inspection on 18 July 2022, stated that she could not recall receiving the email on 08 June 2022 but accepted that it had been sent to the landlord. [Property manager 2] states that during the inspection [Tenant 2] had also said not to worry about the doors because the lounge room was being used as a separate room, and the doors would remain closed even if repaired. [The senior property manager] has produced photographs taken showing the doors closed and with the lounge being used as a home office.

Although not recorded in the pre tenancy checklist, I am satisfied that the issue with the bi fold door remained outstanding at the commencement of [Tenant 2]’s tenancy. I am satisfied it was raised by [Tenant 2] in the email to the landlord 08 June 2022. The matter was not addressed and continued to remain outstanding until the end of the tenancy. Although the tenant may have indicated on 18 July 2022 that they no longer sought to have the doors repaired, I accept the tenant’s evidence that any comment was borne out of frustration.

Based on the evidence I am satisfied that there has been a failure to maintain the door. The inconvenience caused has resulted in a loss of amenity. In determining the level of inconvenience, I also take into consideration that the tenant had toward the end of the tenancy chosen to repurpose the room. I award damages of $300.00. Has the landlord failed to maintain the built-in vacuum cleaning system - [Tenant 1]’s tenancy

The property has a built-in vacuum system. [Tenant 1] states that on or about 21 May 2020 a contractor attended the property to service the unit. [Tenant 1] states that he was advised by the contractor that the system needed “fixing or replacing.” [Tenant 1] stated that there were on going issues with the vacuum, that he advised the landlord verbally but could not recall when or how often he had done so. [Tenant 1] stated that the head of the vacuum would catch on the carpet, and the hose emitted a high-pitched whistling noise. [Tenant 1] has produced the head of the vacuum cleaner, which shows signs of wear and tear, which he claims is indicative of the general condition of the unit.

The landlord has produced an invoice from the contractor who serviced the unit dated 21 May 2020. The contractor replaced filters, inlet valves, and the head piece. There are no other outstanding issues noted. The landlord believes that the vacuum was functioning. [The senior property manager] stated that there was no record of any other issues being raised by [Tenant 1].

[Tenant 1] has been unclear as to when he may have raised any ongoing issues concerning the vacuum. During his evidence, [Tenant 1] also stated that it was more relevant to [Tenant 2]’s tenancy. I am not satisfied that any ongoing issues concerning the internal vacuum cleaner were raised by [Tenant 1] during his tenancy. The claim is dismissed. [Tenant 2]’s tenancy

The vacuum system is recorded in the pre tenancy inspection report. There is no reference to its condition.

[Tenant 2] produced an email to the property manager dated 08 June 2022, in which she reported “We are having trouble with the internal vacuum system again. [Tenant 1] pointed this out to you. The foot of the vacuum fell off due to old age and a rubber washer type thing perished. The system is about 18 years old, I think, so it really does need maintenance, and it’s the only vacuum we have”.

[Tenant 2] stated that the property manager arranged for a contractor to visit the property and collect the hose, handpiece, and head. [Tenant 2] stated that the contractor later advised that a seal, the hose, and the head or foot of the vacuum were worn out and required replacing. There is no evidence that the actual suction unit was faulty. [Tenant 2] believed the contractor had shared their findings with the landlord and were waiting for a response. [Tenant 2] states that the contractor then returned the objects stating they had not heard back from the landlord. [Tenant 2] stated that she was then contacted by the property manager, who advised that they could provide a portable vacuum cleaner. The tenant rejected the offer, stating there were only a limited number of power points throughout the property, and that using a traditional vacuum cleaner, without a long extension lead, was impractical. The matter remained outstanding to the end of the tenancy. The tenant applied glue and cellotape to repair the hand piece and foot. The foot produced by [Tenant 1] has remnants of cellotape.

The landlord acknowledges that the matter had been raised during a property inspection toward the end of [Tenant 2]’s tenancy. The landlord stated that the contractor had advised they were being harassed by the tenant. The landlord states they were advised that although the vacuum still functioned, that it would be too expensive to fix, and that there was no point replacing the hose or foot. There is no evidence from the contractor concerned. The tenant disputes that the whole system needed to be replaced and states that replacing the handpiece, hose and foot would not have been overly expensive. The landlord acknowledged that the matter could have been handled better.

I am satisfied that the landlord has failed to maintain the internal vacuum system. There are no photographs of the hand piece or hose, and I am unable to make an objective assessment as to any damage or fault. The foot has been produced and shows signs of wear and tear. I am advised that the vacuum could still be used. I accept however that it would not have been optimal to use. The tenant was offered a replacement vacuum but declined the offer. After hearing from both parties, I am of the view that the loss of amenity was minor. For the period from when the matter was raised in July 2022 to the end the tenancy in September 2022, I award damages of $150.00. Has the landlord failed to maintain the gas cooking hob - [Tenant 1]’s tenancy

The property was equipped with a four-burner gas hob. [Tenant 1] claimed that within two months of the start of the tenancy, the ignition mechanism of two burners ceased working. On or about 23 April 2019, a contractor visited the property and serviced the hob. On 29 November 2019, [Tenant 1] sent a text message to the property manager suggesting that the hob should be replaced rather than serviced. [Tenant 1] stated that problems with lighting the hob continued and on or about 02 December 2019, the hob had to be serviced again. [Tenant 1] states the hobs had to be lit manually. [Tenant 1] states that the contractor who attended in December 2019, advised that the starters could not be repaired, and that the hob should be replaced. The hob needed to be serviced again on or about 09 February 2021.

[Tenant 1] submits the number of servicing events show that the hob had an obvious defect and should have been replaced. [Tenant 1] submits that once the contractor who attended on December 2019 had recommended the hob be replaced, that the landlord should have done so. [Tenant 1] is of the view that this situation, along with the other faults he is claiming, is an example of the landlord’s “dysfunction.” [Tenant 1] states that despite continuing to report issues with the hob that they remained unresolved.

[Witness 1] stated that when visiting the address recalled issues with the hob from late 2020 to early 2021.

[The senior property manager] submits that the landlord had responded appropriately when issues were raised, and that none of the contractors had given advice during [Tenant 1]’s tenancy that the hob should be replaced. [The senior property manager] stated that there were no texts, emails, letters, or notices to corroborate [Tenant 1]’s claims that he had continued to raise issues until the end of his tenancy. [The directors] stated that any contractor employed by the landlord typically included any recommendation beyond the work completed in their invoice. None of the invoices concerning the hob recommend replacement.

After hearing from the parties and considering the other evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately.

The hob appears to have been serviced three times in two years. However, there is no evidence as to whether this is excessive or necessarily suggests a fault.

There is no evidence before the Tribunal from someone suitably qualified concerning the exact nature or cause of any fault. There is no evidence on which the Tribunal can make a proper objective assessment. None of the landlord’s witnesses can give direct evidence on the matter. [Witness 1] does not describe the fault. All the invoice’s produced report that the hob was cleaned, presumingly to remove blockages hindering the ignition mechanisms. Based on the evidence, I cannot be satisfied to the required standard that the landlord has failed to respond when advised during [Tenant 1]’s tenancy. The claim is dismissed. [Tenant 2]’s tenancy

The pre tenancy checklist for [Tenant 2]’s tenancy does not record any issues with the gas hob. [Tenant 2] stated that at least two more technicians came to service the hob after 23 April 2021. [Tenant 2] is unable to provide dates. [Tenant 2] believed that one reported to the property manager that the ignition starter needed replacing. The hob is not raised in [Tenant 2]’s email to the landlord on 08 June 2022. The landlord stated that they had no record of the matter being raised after the commencement of [Tenant 2]’s tenancy. Despite the matter not being raised the hob was replaced in December 2021.

The landlord has explained that the hob, which was twenty years old, was replaced because it was no longer cost effective to continue the necessary servicing.

The invoice to replace the hob is undated. The landlord states that some of the contractors requested that their contact details not be shared with the tenant for fear of harassment. The landlord stated that in redacting the contractors details they had inadvertently removed the date.

The onus is on [Tenant 2] to establish that the landlord has failed to respond when advised of the fault. [Tenant 2] is unable to provide dates of when she reported the matter after the commencement of her tenancy. There is no evidence of when the other contractors may have attended. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately. The claim is dismissed. Has the landlord failed to maintain the lighting throughout the property - [Tenant 1]’s tenancy

[Tenant 1] claims that the wiring in the property was faulty, resulting in lights blowing particularly in the kitchen and the upstairs bedrooms. However, [Tenant 1] is unable to provide clear evidence as to when he raised the matter with the landlord. The landlord arranged for an electrician to attend the property on 18 January 2020. According to [Tenant 1] the electrician advised that the wiring at the property was dangerous. Subsequently, another electrician visited the property on 11 July 2020.

Due to the potential risks to both people and property the landlord stated that electricity related issues are taken seriously and responded to promptly. The landlord stated they have a practice of giving the electrician an open brief to complete any work necessary. The invoices produced do not indicate any major issues beyond fair wear and tear related to faulty wiring or safety concerns.

Based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations to properly investigate the matter when raised. The timing and frequency of [Tenant 1]’s complaints are unclear. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the landlord’s response was appropriate. Additionally, the electrician’s invoices do not mention any overriding safety concerns. The claim that the landlord has failed to maintain the wiring during [Tenant 1]’s tenancy is dismissed. [Tenant 2]’s tenancy

The pre tenancy checklist shows that 6 out of the 10 downlights in the lounge / living room were functioning, while all other lights in the property were working.

On 08 June 2022, [Tenant 2] sent an email to [Property manager 2] stating “We have an issue with the lights. Many do not work, even when the bulbs are replaced, last inspection you were here I asked [Tenant 1] to take you around and show you but still nothing has been done. The lights on the range hood don’t work either and I have no idea how to replace those ones.” [Tenant 2] states that there was no response.

The issue was raised again during an inspection attended by [The senior property manager] on 18 July 2022. [Tenant 2] has produced a text message sent to [Property manager 2] dated 01 August 2022 complaining that the lights continued to blow, and some power points had stopped working. On 10 August 2022, the electrician, who had previously attended on 20 January 2020 and 11 July 2020, visited, and completed more work. As with the other invoices the electrician has set out in detail the work completed. Once again there do not appear to be any indications of overarching or inherent safety issues.

There was nothing reported in 2019, there were two visits by the electrician in 2020, nothing reported for 2021, the matter was raised again on 08 June 2022 and again on 01 August 2022 and addressed on 10 August 2022. I am not satisfied that there were necessarily any issues with the electrical system other than fair wear and tear.

The issue in this case is whether the landlord has failed to address the matter within a reasonable period. Considering the ongoing wear and tear that the wiring was experiencing, I find the two months between 08 June 2022 and 10 August 2022 was in the circumstances unreasonable. In this instance I find that the landlord has failed to respond within a reasonable period, and that the tenant has suffered a loss of amenity. Considering the extent of the loss of amenity I award [Tenant 2] damages of $150.00. Has the landlord failed to maintain the upstairs bathroom - [Tenant 1]’s tenancy

There are two matters concerning the upstairs bathroom, one involving a leak to the side of the shower and the other a cracked tile on the floor of the shower, both of which [Tenant 1] claims have remained unresolved and have resulted in the formation of black mould which has adversely affected the health of the occupants.

Dealing the with the leak to the side of the shower. On 14 November 2019 [Tenant 1] messaged the property manager about a shower leak. [Tenant 1] states that a plumber attended shortly afterward and applied silicone to the leak which he stated did not remedy the issue. [Tenant 1] has produced a text message he claims was sent to the property manager on 29 November 2019 in which he states “.... and the leak in the shower is still running over the floor and we are constantly having to put down towels, I’d like a solution ASAP.” [Tenant 1] states that despite two attempts and ongoing complaints that the matter remained unresolved.

The landlord has produced a plumber’s invoice showing that on 19 November 2022 a leak was fixed. The landlord stated that to their knowledge the leak was fixed and not raised again during [Tenant 1]’s tenancy. However, the property manager at the material time has since left the landlord.

The landlord called [Witness 6], plumber, who stated that he had been called to attend the property and deal with a leak on 19 November 2019. [Witness 6] stated that it was not uncommon to have jobs described in general terms. [Witness 6] stated he discovered that the shower drain was blocked resulting in a flood. Assuming that was the “leak” he had been called to attend, he believed that he had dealt with the issue. [Witness 6] states that he was called back to the property about 10 days later to deal with another leak in the bathroom. On this occasion [Witness 6] states that he discovered the leak to the side of the shower. [Witness 6] stated he applied silicone to the outside of the leak and was confident that it had been resolved. [Witness 6] cannot recall any damage to the skirting board but states that it was 18 months ago. [Witness 6] stated it was possible that the leak to the side of the shower was the issue that he had been called to investigate, but that the flood caused by the blocked drain had, on the first visit, been the most obvious issue at the time.

[Witness 6] stated that he had not attended to the cracked tile but had been back through records showing that another plumber from his company had attended and applied silicon to the cracked tile on 01 August 2022. [Witness 6] cannot give any direct evidence on that matter. [Tenant 1] challenged [Witness 6] stating that the invoice stated that the silicone had been applied on 19 November 2019. [Tenant 1] also put to [Witness 6] that the text messages [Tenant 1] had sent to the property manager on 29 November 2019 referring to the silicone being applied on 19 November 2019 failing. [Witness 6] confirmed his initial evidence that he had applied silicone after 19 November 2019, and before the end of November 2019. [Witness 6] stated where there was a “call back” soon afterward, and before the invoice had been generated, that he would amend the draft invoice. In this case while he had done so, he had neglected to change the date from 19 November 2019.

I accept [Witness 6]’s evidence and explanation. I also note that [Tenant 1]’s second text message sent 29 November 2019 does not in fact refer to silicone, and states: “...and the leak in the shower is still running all over the floor”. I am satisfied that the silicone was more likely than not applied to the shower after [Tenant 1]’s second text message.

I accept [Witness 6]’s evidence that he visited the property twice in November 2019 and on the second occasion fixed the leak to the outside of the shower. As stated, there is insufficient evidence that [Tenant 1] raised it as an ongoing issue in his tenancy.

The second part of [Tenant 1]’s claim concerns a cracked tile which he claims was not addressed. The landlord stated that the crack tile was not raised during [Tenant 1]’s tenancy.

[Tenant 1] has referred to a plumber’s invoice dated December 2021, which also includes the statement “we checked over the shower and found the shower needs to be looked at by a tiler, the grout is falling out and there is a cracked tile”. However, [Tenant 1]’s tenancy ended on 22 April 2021. This evidence is relevant to [Tenant 2]’s claim relating to the bathroom.

There is no documentary evidence produced such as text message, emails, letters, notices etc corroborating [Tenant 1]’s claim that he raised the broken tile during his tenancy. After hearing from the parties and considering the evidence, I am not satisfied that [Tenant 1] raised either the leak to the side of the shower as an ongoing issue, or the cracked tile during his tenancy. [Tenant 2]’s tenancy

[Tenant 2]’s claim relating to the maintenance of the upstairs bathroom also concerns the leak from the side of the shower, and the cracked tile, both of which she claims the landlord failed to address, resulting in the formation of black mould that adversely affected the health of the occupants.

There are no issues raised concerning the upstairs bathroom in the pre tenancy inspection report.

[Tenant 2] recalls that a hairline crack was reported to the property manager at an inspection in January 2022. The landlord states that they sent a plumber who advised that the crack was cosmetic and did not affect the integrity of the shower as there was a water proofing membrane layer beneath the tiles. The landlord states silicone was applied to the crack.

[Tenant 2] states that the property manager then sent a tiler who she claims rejected the job because it was “too big.” [Tenant 2] states that the landlord then sent a builder who said that “they did not do bathrooms.” Toward the end of the tenancy, [Tenant 1] states that he lifted the cracked tile and took a photograph which he has produced. The actual tile has also been produced. The tile has remnants of silicone.

[Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] both stated that they had raised the leak to the side of the shower and the cracked tile on numerous occasions during [Tenant 2]’s tenancy, but neither was resolved.

[Tenant 1] has produced a photograph of a section of skirting board and section of wall adjacent to the leak which he states show signs of rot and black mould. The photographs produced by [Tenant 1] have all been taken around July 2022 and at the end of [Tenant 2]’s tenancy, and do not show inside the shower where the leak is said to have occurred.

[Tenant 1] has also produced a photograph taken at the end of [Tenant 2]’s tenancy of an area of wall and ceiling he claims is in the lounge directly below the shower showing the presence of black mould.

The landlord states that the area of ceiling and wall is not below the shower but is beneath the upstairs toilet which had leaked and was repaired previously on 09 February 2021.

[Witness 1] stated that she witnessed “black mould” in the upstairs bathroom but does not describe when she first saw the mould or its location.

[Witness 1] stated that she had been present when a contractor visited but could not recall whether it was for the bathroom. That she did witness one of the children with an injured foot which she had been told by the tenant had been caused by the broken tile. [Witness 1] stated that she had been present at a house inspection although could not recall the date, and that she had heard one of the tenants mentioning the gas hobs, bi fold door and bathroom. She states that she recalled the property manager going upstairs but did not see where he went upstairs.

Following the filing of their application, the tenant states that on 27 February 2023, they received a text message from a contractor referring to work being completed on the upstairs bathroom. The tenant states that the text message had been sent to them in error. This was followed by another text message in March 2023 concerning the repair of the bi fold doors, again sent to them in error. [Tenant 1] states that they had visited the contractor’s website and discovered that they specialised in repairing flood damaged properties. [Tenant 1] has produced a photograph taken from the website of a completely stripped out bathroom showing mould damage behind the wall lining and under the floor.

The photographs are not of the property. The landlord is of the view that this is an example of [Tenant 1] seeking to mislead the Tribunal. [Tenant 1] states that it is an example of what the damage likely was. The landlord states that the contractor is one that they regularly use and undertake “general maintenance” work. The landlord has not commented on the nature of work that may have been completed on the bathroom post tenancy but states that the shower has since been replaced.

The landlord states the tenant had used force to lift the tile out, causing damage, and that the photograph does not accurately reflect the nature or extent of the original issue. [Tenant 1] denies that he used force, stating that he simply lifted it out. [Tenant 1] stated that since December 2021 at least four or five contractors had inspected the shower, but that none would “touch” the job, and one refused to apply silicone to the cracked tile.

Despite the cracked tile the tenant used the shower and appears to have continued to do so after removing the tile completely.

During an inspection on 18 July 2022, just before the end of the tenancy, [Tenant 2] stated that she mentioned to [The senior property manager] that she could hear water running down a wall. No water was detected by [The senior property manager]. The landlord states unless the pipes in a house are sound proofed that it is not uncommon to hear water running through them, especially if they run from the level above. [Witness 6] also stated unless the pipes in a house are sound proofed that it is not uncommon to hear water running through them, especially if they run from the level above.

The tenant has produced brief written statements from [Witness 7], builder, [Witness 8], maintenance contractor, and [Witness 2], plumber.

Each witness has been sent two photographs, one showing the wall and skirting board just outside the shower, and another showing, what they have been told by the tenant is an area of ceiling and wall in the lounge directly below the shower, taken at the end of [Tenant 2]’s tenancy.

Each statement is the same and states: “I have looked at the photographs below and from my experience within the building industry with this type of environment. I have determined that this black mould, which is seeping from the upstairs shower – bathroom and walls down with through the room below.”

None of the witnesses have been to the property. Each have based their assessment on photographs and what the tenant has told them. The area of ceiling / wall in the second photograph is, in fact, not below the shower.

[Witness 2] also made a pre-recorded video statement. He stated that he is a plumber with 10 years’ experience. In the video, he firstly referred to the photograph showing the skirting board and section of wall, stating that in his opinion the substance was mould. He stated that it was likely that water had made its way from the corner of the shower under the bottom of the skirting board and into the wall. [Witness 2] then referred to the second photograph of the wall / ceiling. Believing that it was below the shower, he expressed the opinion that the substance shown was likely mould caused from water seeping under the skirting board in the bathroom above.

[Witness 3], surveyor, attended and gave oral evidence speaking to a report that he had previously prepared. Like the previous witnesses, he had not been to the property and had based his opinion on the same two photographs sent to [Witness 3], [Witness 7], and [Witness 2], and another showing the inside of the shower with the tile removed, taken by the landlord at the end of [Tenant 2]’s tenancy.

[Witness 3] stated that he had been asked by the tenant to provide an opinion on the three photographs: a) broken tile within a tiled shower, b) a black substance on a wall / ceiling junction, and c) a wall area on the side of the shower.

Concerning photograph, a) [Witness 3] stated his opinion was that the area below the damaged tile appeared to be damp, suggesting water was able to migrate below before it broke. [Witness 3] stated that from the photographs he could not determine whether there was a moisture barrier. [Witness 3] was unaware of the allegation that the tenant may have pried the tile free and that the shower had continued to be used after the tile was removed and before the end of the tenancy. [Witness 3] added that no visible mould could be seen beneath the tile but that left untreated there was a high likelihood of mould forming.

Regarding photograph b), [Witness 3] stated the substance along the wall / ceiling junction was likely mould which had formed when the protective paint coating had failed or was incomplete. The mould was likely caused by condensation. It was not possible to identify the type of mould, and it could be removed by washing.

Concerning photograph c), [Witness 3] stated that there was visible damage to the timber skirting board. [Witness 3] did not identify the source of the damage but stated it was consistent with water leaking from showers and was not considered a condensation. [Witness 3] stated he had been told by [Tenant 1] that the contractor who repaired the leak in 2019 had witnessed the damage. [Witness 3] stated that the section of wall directly outside the shower had been water damaged causing calcification and blistering. [Witness 3] stated the small patch of mould appeared to be toxigenic and of a type that could be harmful, but without actual testing he could not confirm this. [Witness 3] also noted that no moisture testing had been carried out.

In cross examination [Witness 3] stated that the substance on the ceiling / wall may not have been caused from above. He was unsure whether the water proofing membranes used at the time the property was constructed in 2004 were reliable as they are now. [Witness 3] accepted that it was a building code and council requirement to have one installed. [Witness 3] stated it was possible that water may have been migrating through any hole in the side of the shower for some time undetected before causing any obvious damage. [Witness 3] stated mould can be present but remain undetected within wall and floor cavities for some time. [Witness 3] added that mould is most harmful when it is dry, and the spores can dissipate.

The landlord stated they believed that the leak to the side of the shower had been successfully repaired in November 2019, and that there was no evidence the matter being raised as an ongoing issue by either [Tenant 1] or [Tenant 2].

The landlord has produced photographs of the bathroom taken at routine inspections on 19 January 2022 and 12 April 2022. Both show a small plastic bin obscuring the skirting board and partially obscuring the area of wall concerned. What can be seen of the wall does not show the presence of mould or calcification.

[The senior property manager] stated that on 18 July 2022, [Tenant 2] had stated that she could hear water running down the inside of a wall. [The senior property manager] stated that both himself and [Property manager 2], who was also present, could not detect any issue, and that the substance on the ceiling in the lounge had not been brought to their attention.

[The senior property manager] states that it was at this inspection that the cracked tile was raised for the first time. [The senior property manager] has produced photographs taken of the shower and cracked tile during the inspection. The tile is in place, lying flat, with a small visible chip. [The senior property manager] states that the landlord engaged a plumber to inspect the shower. On 01 August 2022, the plumber attended and applied silicone to the area. [The senior property manager] states that the repair was temporary, that the landlord had been advised that the crack did not pose any imminent risk of leaking, as the shower had a waterproof membrane, but that due to age and wear that re tiling the shower would be the best solution.

[The senior property manager] accepts the tenant’s evidence that two contractors inspected the job but that neither wanted it. [The senior property manager] states that after 01 August 2022, that there was no evidence that the tenant had raised it as an ongoing issue. [The senior property manager] stated that since the end of the tenancy the landlord had managed to find a contractor and that the shower had since been replaced.

The evidence shows that the skirting board and affected area of wall was obscured from view. Unless the damage was pointed out, I am not satisfied that the damage to the wall was obvious to a property manager.

Although I accept that the damage to skirting board and wall have likely been from water leaking from the shower, in the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately. The claim relating to the leak is dismissed.

Despite what both parties assert, the documentary evidence shows the cracked tile was reported to the landlord in December 2021 by the plumber who replaced the gas hob. The plumber’s advice was that the grout was showing signs of wear and tear and there was a cracked tile. The landlord sent contractors to provide quotes, but none were interested. The email sent by [Tenant 2] to [Property manager 2] dated 08 June 2022 does not mention the cracked tile or the leak. However, I accept that the issue with the tile was ongoing. The tile was then raised again at the inspection on 18 July 2022. The date that silicone was first applied to the tile is uncertain. Silicone was applied to the crack for a second time on 01 August 2022.

It is the obligation of the landlord to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable condition and to respond and remedy issues arising within a reasonable period. In this case the cracked tile was first brought to the landlord’s attention in December 2021. Although there was a temporary repair the matter remained unresolved until the end of the tenancy. Despite their endeavours, the landlord has failed to remedy the matter.

There is insufficient evidence to find that the crack caused any mould. While it is likely that water made its way through the crack in the tile, I am not satisfied that water leaked through the waterproof membrane, and if it did leak through the membrane, it was likely after [Tenant 1] had fully removed the tile.

The occupants continued to use the shower. There is insufficient evidence of any injury caused to the occupants.

While in my view there has been a loss of amenity suffered by [Tenant 2] it was not significant. I award the tenant damages of $500.00. Has the landlord failed to maintain the dishwasher - [Tenant 1]’s tenancy

The property was provided with two half sized dishwashers. On or about 14 November 2019, [Tenant 1] raised an issue concerning one of the dishwashers. The unit was replaced soon afterward. [Tenant 1] stated that the contractor who replaced the unit expressed the view that as both were the same age, the second unit should also be replaced. There is no evidence that the second dishwasher had a fault at that time.

[Tenant 1] stated that sometime later the second dishwasher developed a fault. [Tenant 1] is unable to refer to any documentary evidence reporting the matter. [Tenant 1] recalled “ongoing verbal communication” but is unable to provide any dates.

[Property manager 1] stated that at the end of [Tenant 2]’s tenancy he tested both dishwashers and there was no issue with either.

There is insufficient evidence to be satisfied that the second dishwasher had a fault, and if it did, that [Tenant 1] raised it with the landlord. [Tenant 1]’s claim concerning the dishwasher is dismissed. [Tenant 2]’s tenancy

On 08 June 2022, [Tenant 2] sent an email to [Property manager 2], who had taken over as property manager from the end of 2021, advising that the remaining original dishwasher had not been working for a couple of months and explained the fault. [Tenant 1] stated that the dishwasher had an intermittent fault.

[Property manager 2] acknowledged that the issue with the dishwasher had been advised on 08 June 2022 but claimed that the landlord had sent a contractor who had then reported that there was no issue with the dishwasher, suggesting user error. There is no invoice produced for this visit. The landlord has also referred to [Property manager 1] testing of both dishwashers in September 2022. The landlord also state that the new tenant has not raised any issue with the dishwasher.

[Tenant 2] states that the contractor who visited focused on the oven and did not look at the dishwasher. It is unclear why the contractor did not look at both appliances, and why [Tenant 2] did not invite them to do so at the time.

Based on the evidence before me, I am unable to determine if the dishwasher had any fault and I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately. The claim is dismissed. Has the landlord failed to provide and maintain the waste disposal unit - [Tenant 1]’s tenancy

The property had a waste disposal unit in the kitchen. [Tenant 1] states that soon after the start of his tenancy, the unit developed a fault. [Tenant 1] stated he advised the property manager, who has since left the employment of the landlord, advised him that it would be repaired. [Tenant 1] stated a contractor visited on or about 15 April 2019. [Tenant 1] does not appear to have been present at the time. Instead of repairing the unit the contractor removed it and replaced the plumbing.

[Tenant 1] stated that he advised the property manager that he believed the unit would be replaced and was not happy. [Tenant 1] stated he was advised by the property manager that the owner of the property had deemed the waste disposal unit to be non-essential. [Tenant 1] stated that the waste disposal was a chattel which had attracted the family to the property and that he had had a conversation with the property manager about reducing the rent for loss of amenity but that there was no response. There is no documentary evidence of [Tenant 1] raising the matter again.

The landlord stated they had no written record of [Tenant 1] expressing dissatisfaction. [Property manager 1] stated that it was the landlord’s practice to keep written records of any matters raised concerning the property. I am unsure as to the accuracy of this evidence. The landlord stated that any inconvenience would have been minor and mitigated by the Council’s new [redacted] kerbside waste collection. [The directors] stated that had [Tenant 1] wanted the unit to be replaced that it would have been arranged. However, [The director] was not the property manager and there is no evidence that the matter was raised with her directly.

There is no chattels list provided with [Tenant 1]’s tenancy agreement. The list attached to [Tenant 2]’s agreement refers to “Sink / disposal unit,” but there appears to be no dispute that the waste disposal unit was a chattel in [Tenant 1]’s tenancy only.

After hearing from [Tenant 1], I find, more likely than not, that at the material time he expected the unit to be repaired, and more likely than not expressed his dissatisfaction to the property manager when it was removed. I am also satisfied that [Tenant 1] asked for the unit to be replaced or a reduce rent be considered. I am satisfied that having provided the waste disposal unit as a chattel, by removing it without consultation with the tenant as to replacement or other options that the landlord has breached their obligation to provide and maintain the property, in this case the chattel. The tenant has not continued to have the use of something that he had bargained for at the commencement of the tenancy.

Concerning the extent of [Tenant 1]’s loss of amenity. Having been advised that the unit would not be replaced and having no response to his requests for a rent reduction, I am not satisfied that he pursued the matter further. This suggests that at the material time the matter may not have been as pressing as [Tenant 1] now claims. I accept the landlord’s submission that the matter likely resulted in a minor inconvenience. Taking these matters into account I award [Tenant 1] compensation for loss of amenity of $250.00 [Tenant 2]’s tenancy

The claim has also been raised by [Tenant 2]. There was no waste disposal unit at the commencement of [Tenant 2]’s tenancy. One was not provided with the tenancy as a chattel. [Tenant 2]’s claim concerning the waste disposal unit is dismissed. Has the landlord failed to maintain the oven - [Tenant 1]’s tenancy

One of [Tenant 1]’s claims is that the landlord has failed to maintain the oven. In his written submissions filed with [Tenant 2]’s application, [Tenant 1] refers to the oven developing a fault “12 months ago”. This squarely puts any issue arising with the oven in [Tenant 2]’s tenancy and not [Tenant 1]’s. [Tenant 2]’s tenancy

On 08 June 2022, [Tenant 2] reported by email to [Property manager 2] an issue with the oven.

[Tenant 2] stated that the fault was intermittent and while it did not affect the “plain or ordinary usage,” it had an effect on “gourmet cooking.”

A contractor visited an inspected the oven, and the dishwasher. [Tenant 2] believed that the contractor reported to the landlord that the oven should be replaced. [Property manager 2] denies this and believes that the oven had been repaired although has been unable to produce the invoice. [Tenant 2] stated that the matter was not resolved, and that the oven had the fault until the end of the tenancy. [Tenant 2] stated that she had been advised by the present tenants that the oven had a problem.

[The senior property manager] and [Property manager 1] both state that they have personally tested the oven and have not detected any issues and deny that the present tenant has raised any issues with the oven.

On the evidence before me I am unable to determine what fault, if any, the oven had, and I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately. The claim is dismissed. Has the landlord failed to maintain the lino and carpet - [Tenant 1]’s tenancy

[Tenant 1] has produced photographs of some areas of carpet which he stated he took in July 2022. The photographs show areas of carpet in some of the rooms, and on the stairs. [Tenant 1] states that the carpet is clearly rotten, and on the stairs, in a condition posing a health and safety risk. [Tenant 1] stated that the occupants had suffered injuries although no evidence has been produced. [Tenant 1] stated at the commencement of his tenancy the property manager had advised that the carpet would be replaced. [Tenant 1] also claims that where the lino met the carpet in the kitchen / dining room had lifted causing a trip hazard. There are no photographs of this damage. [Tenant 1] stated that he could not recall when he had raised the issue but felt that it may have been early 2021. There is no documentary record.

[The senior property manager] accepts that the carpet is showing signs of wear and tear. [The director] doubts that the property manager advised that the carpet would be replaced, stating that the landlord does not replace carpet during a tenancy.

There is insufficient evidence to be satisfied that [Tenant 1] raised any issues with the carpet or lino during his tenancy. There are no photographs of the lino. While the photographs of the carpet show wear and tear commensurate with its age, 15 years, my objective assessment is that it does not necessarily pose a health and safety risk. The claim that the landlord has failed to maintain the carpet and lino during [Tenant 1]’s tenancy is dismissed. [Tenant 2]’s tenancy

[Tenant 2]’s claim concerning the carpet and lino is like that of [Tenant 1]. [Tenant 2] states that she raised it during an inspection with [The senior property manager] and [Property manager 2] on 18 July 2022. The landlord states that the carpet was raised for the first time during the inspection. [The senior property manager] states that the damaged areas had likely been caused by carpet beetle that are now deceased or departed. While he agreed that the carpet was well past its useful lifespan [The senior property manager] stated that it did not pose a health and safety risk. [The senior property manager] stated that [Tenant 1] showed him the metal joiner between the vinyl flooring and the carpet in the dining room and was advised by [Tenant 1] that he had already hammered the joiner flat. [The senior property manager] denies that his attention was drawn to the stairs at the inspection and that the photographs did not show damage posing a risk to health and safety.

I am not satisfied that the carpet was raised by [Tenant 2] until the inspection on 18 July 2023, which is near the end of the tenancy. As stated, the carpet is showing general signs of wear and tear. Based on the photographs I am not satisfied that the carpet on the stairs posed a health and safety risk. I am not satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligations and the claim is dismissed. Has the landlord failed to provide an approved form of heating in the main living room - Both [Tenant 1]s and [Tenant 2]’s tenancy

The Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) for both tenancies come into effect of 01 July 2025. However, in both tenancies, the landlord must comply with Regulation 6 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 and provide and maintain an approved form of heating in the main living room.

As stated, the property has an open plan living / dining room opening into a second lounge space via bi fold doors, which the tenant has stated they kept closed. There is a flued gas heater in the second lounge. The tenant states that the heater was insufficient to heat what they consider to be the main living room, comprising the dining / living room and second lounge.

The tenant also stated that at the commencement of the tenancy they had been advised by the property manager that there was underfloor heating, but that there was none. No documentary evidence, such as property advertisements have been produced to support this claim. It is not a feature recorded in [Tenant 2]’s pre tenancy inspection report.

The HHS report dated 09 September 2020 also deals with heating. The report concludes that a 4.5 kW (Kilowatt) heat pump would be required to heat the main living room. The assessor has determined the floor size of the main living area to be 26m2. It is unclear whether this necessarily includes all the rooms that the tenant claims make up the main living area. The tenant has not produced measurements for each room.

In response to the tenant’s concern that the heating was inadequate the landlord arranged for a certified gas fitter to inspect the heater. In a certificate dated 03 March 2022, the gas fitter records that the heater complies with the building code and has an output of 3.65 kPa (Kilopascal), which is equal to an output of 12kW.

On the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to comply with the Housing Improvement Regulations concerning heating and the claim is dismissed. Has the landlord failed to comply with the insulation standards - Both [Tenant 1]’s and [Tenant 2]’s tenancy

Both tenants claim that the landlord has breached their 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 (Insulation Regulations).

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.

There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.

[Tenant 1] stated that in or around June 2022 a contractor visited the property to measure up for a heat pump in the main lounge / living room. During the visit, both [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] claim that the contractor advised that they could not provide a quote because they could not access the ceiling void above the lounge / living room, due to the absence of an access point. [Tenant 1] stated the contractor concluded that as there was no access that there must not be any insulation.

The landlord stated that to the best of their knowledge the property is insulation compliant. The landlord has produced an HHS report dated 09 September 2020, prepared by an independent contractor, who states that the property is insulation compliant.

The burden of proof is on the tenant to establish that the property does not comply with the Insulation Regulations. Apart from the tenant’s hearsay evidence as to what the contractor has told them, there is no other evidence. In the absence of reliable evidence to the contrary it is difficult to go behind the HHS report.

The claim that the landlord has failed to meet the Insulation Regulations is dismissed. Has the landlord failed to maintain the gardens - [Tenant 2]’s tenancy only

[Tenant 2] has produced photographs of what she claims is woolly nightshade in the garden. To the untrained eye the plant concerned looks like a well- established and innocuous shrub. In his affidavit [Witness 5] states that he is an arborist and outdoor maintenance person and that he has known [Tenant 1] since 1981.

[Witness 5] states that on 22 January 2022 he visited the property to conduct gardening work for [Tenant 1]. During the visit he states that he noticed woolly nightshade in the garden, which he concluded had likely come from a nearby gully. I am advised that the gully is council land. [Witness 5] states that he also noticed the presence of privet which he states can cause respiratory issues in some people. [Witness 5] stated these plants, if not removed properly, can grow back causing further issues. I have been advised that woolly nightshade is considered a noxious weed.

[Witness 1] states that she was aware that there was woolly nightshade and privet in the garden, and that she recalled the tenant’s children becoming unwell during a certain period of the year. Apart from a school attendance record, there is no documentary evidence from someone suitably qualified confirming the cause of any unwellness of the tenants or any other occupant.

[Tenant 2] took a photograph of the offending plant and sent it to the property manager. A short time later, a contractor arrived. [Tenant 2] states that the contractor would not touch the woolly nightshade. Another contractor visited the property on 08 February 2022 and removed the plants. [Tenant 2] states that the contractor disposed of the woolly nightshade by throwing it into the gully, which she claims was inappropriate.

Whether or not the plants were responsible for respiratory unwellness in the occupants is not the issue. The issue is whether, having been advised of the presence of the plants concerned, the landlord failed to respond appropriately. The landlord states that they responded as soon as the matter was raised, and that following the removal of the plants on 08 February 2022, that it was not raised again until it was included in [Tenant 2]’s application filed on 25 October 2022. This is not disputed by [Tenant 2].

[Tenant 2] was unaware of the presence of these plants until advised of their presence by [Witness 5]. If [Tenant 1] or [Tenant 2] were in fact aware before that, it was not raised with the landlord.

After hearing from the parties and considering the evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed in their obligations. Once advised, they have responded, and the offending plants were removed. At the material time, [Tenant 2] did not raise any concerns regarding the conduct of the contractor in removing the plants, and the matter has been raised again for the first time at this hearing. The claim that the landlord has failed to maintain the grounds in a reasonable condition is dismissed. Costs

Under Section 102 (4) the Tribunal has a discretion to award an applicant who has been partly successful reimbursement of their filing fee. In this case both landlord, and tenant have been partly successful. As ordering reimbursement of the filing fee to one party would be cancelled out by the award to the other, I decline to make any order. Suppression

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

The landlord seeks name suppression. As the landlord has been substantially successful, they are granted name suppression.

Both [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] seek name suppression, however neither has been wholly or substantially successful.

Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.

In the case of Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZSC 135 at [2]-[3],[13], and [18], the Supreme Court stated the principle of open justice was fundamental to the common law system of civil and criminal justice. The Court stated that it was well established that there were circumstances in which the interests of justice required departure from the general principle, but only to the extent required to serve the administration of justice. The Court referred to the administration of justice standard as capable of accommodating the particular circumstances of individual cases with consideration given to the broader public interest. The Court went onto endorse the principle in ASB Bank Ltd v AB [2010] 3 NZLR 427 (HC), stating, that there must be specific adverse consequences sufficient to justify an exception to the rule, adding that the threshold was a high one.

There is evidence before the Tribunal confirming that [Tenant 2] suffers a cognitive decline due to a head injury and concussion. Although [Tenant 2] was represented by [Tenant 1] during the hearing, she exhibited signs of heightened sensitivity to stress. [Tenant 2] states that publishing her name will adversely impact on her physical and emotional health and well-being. Having observed [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] in court and based on the material before me I accept that submission. Despite not sharing a surname [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] are in a partnership. Naming [Tenant 1] and allowing the publication of the address of the property may inadvertently reveal [Tenant 2]’s identity. While [Tenant 1]’s conduct regarding the fraudulent email could be grounds for denying suppression, it might be subject to proceedings in another jurisdiction, making it inappropriate to deny suppression in this case.

I am satisfied that there are grounds to exercise the discretion in section 95A (4) of the Act and order suppression of both tenant’s names and the address of the property.