What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4908977 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4908977?

Compensation: loss of amenity from 3…: $1,515.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4908977?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4908977?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11547744-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4908977 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4908977?

Compensation: loss of amenity from 3…: $1,515.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4908977?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4908977?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11547744-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

107 Darlington Road, Miramar, Wellington 6022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4908977 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

107 Darlington Road, Miramar, Wellington 6022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4908977 — Tenancy dispute | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4908977 — net $1,535.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of amenity from 30 April 2019 to 19 February 2025	$1,515.00	loss of amenity from 30 April 2019 to 19 February 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,535.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,535.44

Claims and awards for application 4908977 — net $1,535.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: loss of amenity from 30 April 2019 to 19 February 2025

Amount: $1,515.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: loss of amenity from 30 April 2019 to 19 February 2025

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $1,535.44

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $1,535.44

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $1,535.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
BY CONSENT - The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises: a. Arrange a builder to mould and moisture test the storage cupboard in the hallway and carry out any work to make sure the cupboard is safe and dry and has no holes, and this work must be completed by 5 April 2025. b. Arrange a trades person to repair and paint the ceiling in the laundry area and the storage cupboard as required and this work must be completed by 5 April 2025. c. Kainga Ora to contact the relevant Council and arrange for the water toby to be repaired and this must be done by 17 March 2025.
The tenant agrees the landlord can have access to carry out the work after proper notice is given and that the workers can have clear access to the areas, which means some belongings will have to be moved by the tenant.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant had a support person. The landlord had a representative.
This tenancy started in 2013. In 2016 there was a sudden leak from a header tank installed in the ceiling space. Urgent repairs were carried out. On 3 January 2019 the tenant discovered another leak from the header tank. This leak was a slow leak into the large storage cupboard in the hallway. The carpet and the items stored were wet and there was an overwhelming smell of mould in the cupboard. The light bulb inside the cupboard blew when the tenant turned the light on. She turned the power off at the switchboard, called the landlord, and waited more than 24 hours for an electrician to arrive.
The tenant has filed her application because she is worried about the header tank leaking again, and for compensation for lost belongings and breaches in the way the landlord handled the repair process. The questions I have to decide are: • Should I make work orders? • Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain? • Should the tenant get compensation?

Should I make work orders?

The tenant is especially worried that the header tank will leak again, which I can understand because of the two previous leaks. She wants the header tank removed and she wants the water toby repaired so she can turn the water off if there is another leak. At the hearing the hearing the landlord’s representative explained that the house has a low hot water system which requires a header tank to function properly. He also said it is the Council’s responsibility to repair the water toby. He agreed the ceiling in the laundry area should have been properly repaired after the 2016 leak. He also agreed to have the storage cupboard in the hallway checked by a builder to ensure the cupboard is dry and that there is no mould. I find the builder should also check that there are no holes in the cupboard. This offer to carry out work and to sort the toby repair was helpful. I note the tenant agreed to allow access and that she might need some time to arrange assistance to move belongings. Work orders are made by consent.

Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires the landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. In particular, the tenant is concerned that the landlord did not act promptly after the leak in 2019 or take her concerns seriously in the years since.
This claim is limited to six years because of the Limitations Act 2010. This means I can consider claims relating to the 2019 leak and I will only consider the claim for the ceiling repair from the 2016 leak.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have considered her verbal evidence at the hearing, as well as the photos, videos and supporting documents. I have also read all the supporting documents provided by the landlord. I find the landlord acted promptly to stop the leak in 2019 and to check the electricity the next day. Fans were provided to dry the area. I cannot find any breach of section 45 here.
The landlord had the best evidence at the hearing about the header tank. The tenant could not prove that header tanks are obsolete and are no longer allowed under the building regulations. I find there was no breach by having a header tank and this part of the claim is dismissed.
I am concerned the carpet took nine months to install. I am concerned that the hall carpet was left wrinkled and bumpy for about two years, which was a hazard for the tenant who uses a mobility aid. I am concerned that the water toby was not fixed, despite the repeated requests. I am concerned that the landlord left the ceiling partially repaired after the 2016 leak. I am also concerned that the hallway cupboard has not been moisture tested despite the tenant raising concerns about mould and an ongoing smell. I find there was a breach of the landlord’s duty to repair or check these issues.

Should the tenant get compensation?

The tenant has claimed compensation because of breaches and because she lost precious things as a result of the 2019 leak. This is her claim to prove.
I was provided with a list of damaged belongings, and I have some photos as well. I do not find there was any breach by the landlord relating to the header tank. The best evidence I have is that these are a usual installation in Kainga Ora houses. The tenant has not proved the header tank was installed incorrectly after the flood in 2016. This means the landlord cannot be held responsible for the slow leak into the storage cupboard in 2019. Even the tenant did not know there was a leak until she walked on the wet carpet. I have not found there was any breach by the landlord when it arranged the immediate, urgent work to stop the leak and dry the house. This means the landlord cannot be held responsible for the water and mould damaged belongings. This claim is dismissed.
It does seem from the submissions that the landlord did not take the tenant’s concerns seriously. For example, there was a submission in an earlier hearing that the water toby wing nut had been removed to stop the tenant tampering with it. This was retracted at the last hearing, but it shows the landlord blamed the tenant when all she wanted was a functioning toby in case of further leaks. The hall carpet took 9 months to install and years before it was stretched. The ceiling repair from 2016 has not been stopped and painted. The tenant’s concerns about mould and damp in the hall cupboard have not been followed up with a builder’s visit or moisture testing.
I find the tenant has proved there was a loss of amenity because she was paying rent but she could not use the house as intended. I allow compensation from 30 April 2019 because the repairs should have been completed by then. Deciding compensation is difficult because the tenant has taken so long to file her application. Also the loss of amenity has been minor but frustrating. I find $5 a week to be fair, for the 303 weeks from May 2019 to the hearing. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because she is the most successful party. The landlord’s name is published because there is public interest in social housing.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4908977 — net $1,535.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of amenity from 30 April 2019 to 19 February 2025	$1,515.00	loss of amenity from 30 April 2019 to 19 February 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,535.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,535.44

Claims and awards for application 4908977 — net $1,535.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: loss of amenity from 30 April 2019 to 19 February 2025

Amount: $1,515.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: loss of amenity from 30 April 2019 to 19 February 2025

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $1,535.44

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $1,535.44

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $1,535.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
BY CONSENT - The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises: a. Arrange a builder to mould and moisture test the storage cupboard in the hallway and carry out any work to make sure the cupboard is safe and dry and has no holes, and this work must be completed by 5 April 2025. b. Arrange a trades person to repair and paint the ceiling in the laundry area and the storage cupboard as required and this work must be completed by 5 April 2025. c. Kainga Ora to contact the relevant Council and arrange for the water toby to be repaired and this must be done by 17 March 2025.
The tenant agrees the landlord can have access to carry out the work after proper notice is given and that the workers can have clear access to the areas, which means some belongings will have to be moved by the tenant.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant had a support person. The landlord had a representative.
This tenancy started in 2013. In 2016 there was a sudden leak from a header tank installed in the ceiling space. Urgent repairs were carried out. On 3 January 2019 the tenant discovered another leak from the header tank. This leak was a slow leak into the large storage cupboard in the hallway. The carpet and the items stored were wet and there was an overwhelming smell of mould in the cupboard. The light bulb inside the cupboard blew when the tenant turned the light on. She turned the power off at the switchboard, called the landlord, and waited more than 24 hours for an electrician to arrive.
The tenant has filed her application because she is worried about the header tank leaking again, and for compensation for lost belongings and breaches in the way the landlord handled the repair process. The questions I have to decide are: • Should I make work orders? • Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain? • Should the tenant get compensation?

Should I make work orders?

The tenant is especially worried that the header tank will leak again, which I can understand because of the two previous leaks. She wants the header tank removed and she wants the water toby repaired so she can turn the water off if there is another leak. At the hearing the hearing the landlord’s representative explained that the house has a low hot water system which requires a header tank to function properly. He also said it is the Council’s responsibility to repair the water toby. He agreed the ceiling in the laundry area should have been properly repaired after the 2016 leak. He also agreed to have the storage cupboard in the hallway checked by a builder to ensure the cupboard is dry and that there is no mould. I find the builder should also check that there are no holes in the cupboard. This offer to carry out work and to sort the toby repair was helpful. I note the tenant agreed to allow access and that she might need some time to arrange assistance to move belongings. Work orders are made by consent.

Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires the landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. In particular, the tenant is concerned that the landlord did not act promptly after the leak in 2019 or take her concerns seriously in the years since.
This claim is limited to six years because of the Limitations Act 2010. This means I can consider claims relating to the 2019 leak and I will only consider the claim for the ceiling repair from the 2016 leak.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have considered her verbal evidence at the hearing, as well as the photos, videos and supporting documents. I have also read all the supporting documents provided by the landlord. I find the landlord acted promptly to stop the leak in 2019 and to check the electricity the next day. Fans were provided to dry the area. I cannot find any breach of section 45 here.
The landlord had the best evidence at the hearing about the header tank. The tenant could not prove that header tanks are obsolete and are no longer allowed under the building regulations. I find there was no breach by having a header tank and this part of the claim is dismissed.
I am concerned the carpet took nine months to install. I am concerned that the hall carpet was left wrinkled and bumpy for about two years, which was a hazard for the tenant who uses a mobility aid. I am concerned that the water toby was not fixed, despite the repeated requests. I am concerned that the landlord left the ceiling partially repaired after the 2016 leak. I am also concerned that the hallway cupboard has not been moisture tested despite the tenant raising concerns about mould and an ongoing smell. I find there was a breach of the landlord’s duty to repair or check these issues.

Should the tenant get compensation?

The tenant has claimed compensation because of breaches and because she lost precious things as a result of the 2019 leak. This is her claim to prove.
I was provided with a list of damaged belongings, and I have some photos as well. I do not find there was any breach by the landlord relating to the header tank. The best evidence I have is that these are a usual installation in Kainga Ora houses. The tenant has not proved the header tank was installed incorrectly after the flood in 2016. This means the landlord cannot be held responsible for the slow leak into the storage cupboard in 2019. Even the tenant did not know there was a leak until she walked on the wet carpet. I have not found there was any breach by the landlord when it arranged the immediate, urgent work to stop the leak and dry the house. This means the landlord cannot be held responsible for the water and mould damaged belongings. This claim is dismissed.
It does seem from the submissions that the landlord did not take the tenant’s concerns seriously. For example, there was a submission in an earlier hearing that the water toby wing nut had been removed to stop the tenant tampering with it. This was retracted at the last hearing, but it shows the landlord blamed the tenant when all she wanted was a functioning toby in case of further leaks. The hall carpet took 9 months to install and years before it was stretched. The ceiling repair from 2016 has not been stopped and painted. The tenant’s concerns about mould and damp in the hall cupboard have not been followed up with a builder’s visit or moisture testing.
I find the tenant has proved there was a loss of amenity because she was paying rent but she could not use the house as intended. I allow compensation from 30 April 2019 because the repairs should have been completed by then. Deciding compensation is difficult because the tenant has taken so long to file her application. Also the loss of amenity has been minor but frustrating. I find $5 a week to be fair, for the 303 weeks from May 2019 to the hearing. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because she is the most successful party. The landlord’s name is published because there is public interest in social housing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4908977 — Tenancy dispute at 107 Darlington Road, Miramar, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4908977 — Tenancy dispute at 107 Darlington Road, Miramar, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should I make work orders?

Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain?

Should the tenant get compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should I make work orders?

Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain?

Should the tenant get compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions