What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4983369 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 4983369?

Compensation: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4983369?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4983369?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11491459-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4983369 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 4983369?

Compensation: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4983369?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4983369?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11491459-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4983369 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4983369 — net $2,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation failure to maintain garage door	$1,200.00	Compensation failure to maintain garage door
Compensation failing to maintain carpet	$600.00	Compensation failing to maintain carpet
Compensation failing to maintain guttering	$50.00	Compensation failing to maintain guttering
Compensation failing to maintain kitchen drawer	$150.00	Compensation failing to maintain kitchen drawer
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,027.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4983369 — net $2,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation failure to maintain garage door	$1,200.00	Compensation failure to maintain garage door
Compensation failing to maintain carpet	$600.00	Compensation failing to maintain carpet
Compensation failing to maintain guttering	$50.00	Compensation failing to maintain guttering
Compensation failing to maintain kitchen drawer	$150.00	Compensation failing to maintain kitchen drawer
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,027.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
must pay immediately, as set out in the table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant appeared and was supported by their mother. [ Director and Property Manager] appeared for the landlord.
The tenancy commenced on 30 July 2020 and ended on 02 September 2024. The bond was refunded to the tenant. On 19 September 2024, the tenant filed a claim with the Tribunal. The matter was initially listed for hearing on 09 December 2024 but was subsequently adjourned and rescheduled for a face-to- face hearing before me on 21 January 2025.
The tenant’s application included claims that the landlord failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards Regulations 2019 (“HHS”) regarding moisture ingress and drainage.
Except for provisions relating to smoke alarms and insulation the HHS would not apply to this tenancy agreement until 01 July 2025.
The tenant also claims that the landlord has failed to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable condition, namely. i. The ceiling (leaks), ii. Guttering, iii. The garage door, iv. Carpet, v. Shower mixer, vi. Bathroom floor, vii. Boundary fencing, viii. Window frames ix. Shrubs and trees
The tenant seeks compensation for loss of amenity and exemplary damages.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the tenant. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The tenant must establish more likely than not that the landlord has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Law
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises.
The landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair any defect brought to their attention within a period which is reasonable in the circumstances.
In Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV 2009 085-001431, 24 February 2010 the Court stated: “I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair the defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”.
Whether the landlord has failed to meet their obligations will require an objective assessment.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) of the Act. Windows
The property was built in the 1960s and consists of three bedrooms, bathroom, separate toilet, kitchen / dining room, kitchen, lounge, laundry, garage, and two garden sheds.
The tenant claims that the wooden window frames were rotten, loose, and rattled in the wind. The tenant has produced four close-up photographs showing the outside of three windows. The windows show signs of wear and tear commensurate with the properties age. In two of the photographs, some windows are missing putty, while in others, parts of the frame are cracked.
The tenant has produced a text message to the landlord dated 02 August 2022 raising the matter, and an undated text they state was sent toward the end of the tenancy. The tenant states that the matter raised the issue with the property manager during a routine inspection on or about 21 January 2024. Despite this, they state the issue remained unresolved.
The landlord states that although some windows had visible signs of deterioration, they did not compromise the properties weathertightness. The landlord produced an HHS report dated 05 February 2020 confirming that the windows concerned were HHS compliant. The landlord also produced an invoice dated 23 December 2022 from a contractor engaged to ensure the property complied with the relevant HHS. The landlord also submits that there was no evidence that the windows leaked or where otherwise compromised.
The tenant questioned the accuracy of the HHS report, stating that they could feel drafts inside. The tenant stated that the windows did leak but accepted that they did not have any evidence.
On the evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to maintain the windows in a reasonable state of repair. Based on the tenant’s photographs, I accept the landlord’s submissions that, while showing visible signs of deterioration or wear and tear, there was no evidence that they leaked or allowed a draft. The claim is dismissed. Shower taps.
The tenant states there was an issue with the shower mixer, which was extremely delicate to operate and would either provide water too hot or too cold. The tenant stated they had four young children, and none could use the shower unsupervised.
The tenant states they sent a text message raising the issue on 02 August 2022. It was then included in a 14-day notice issued on 19 February 2024, and again in an email dated 05 August 2024. The tenant also stated they had raised it with property managers during routine inspections. Despite raising the issue, the tenant states that it was not addressed.
The landlord states after receiving the 14 day notice they sent a handyperson to inspect the mixer on 13 March 2024, who reported “Checked and serviced shower mixer. Functioning okay and safely.” It was not raised again until July 2024.
The landlord cannot recall being told that it was scolding people.
The tenant accepted that they had not advised the landlord that it was scalding people but nevertheless felt that the delay between reporting the issue and investigation was unreasonable, and that the matter was never properly addressed.
There is no documentary record of the matter being raised until included in the 14-day notice issued on 19 February 2024. This is the only 14-day notice issued. Upon receiving the notice, the landlord engaged a handyperson who shortly afterward attended and checked the mixer. The handyperson stated it was functioning; the tenant states it was not. To resolve this conflict requires an objective assessment. However, there are no photographs or videos produced. There is insufficient evidence to make an objective assessment as to the nature of any defect. The onus is on the tenant to prove the claim. The claim is dismissed. Guttering
The tenant states that a downpipe to one of the gutters on the garage was missing, causing water to spill onto the lawn creating a muddy patch. They also state that the downpipe near the back door was disconnected during cleaning and not reattached, causing the driveway to become slippery.
The tenant states they raised this issue on 12 February 2024 and included it in the 14-day notice. The further state they raised it during an inspection in July 2024 and via an email on 02 August 2024, but no action was taken.
The landlord states that they instructed a handyperson to attend on 10 March 2024 and believed that issue had been addressed. The landlord has produced from the handyperson stating “. unblocked drain on the side of the house.... realign gutter...” The landlord states that the issue with the garage downpipe on was never brought to their attention. The landlord states that the tenant was not present at the inspection in July 2024.
There is no evidence that the issue with the garage downpipe was brought to the landlords’ attention. The tenant acknowledged that they were not present for the July 2024 inspection. There are no photographs of water pooling or a muddy lawn.
The tenant has produced a photograph of the disconnected house down pipe which they state was taken on 24 August 2024, shortly before the end of the tenancy.
There has either been a misunderstanding between the landlord and the handyperson as to which section of the guttering required repair, although the tenant states it was obvious, or the handyperson has charged for work that was not completed.
The landlord produced another invoice from another contractor engaged after the end of the tenancy dated 17 September 2024, stating “unblock down pipe and re connect guttering”.
Based on the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the issue with the house downpipe remained unresolved. The drain was cleared, the down pipe was not reconnected until after the tenancy ended. However, there is no evidence showing the ground beneath the house downpipe to determine the extent of any damage. Although, I am satisfied that there has been a breach, the loss of amenity is difficult to quantify. Therefore, I award nominal damages of $50.00. Bathroom floor
The tenant states that there was a hole in the bathroom floor which, was reported to the landlord during inspections. The tenant states that no action was taken, so they covered the hole with tape. The hole grew larger, and one of their children’s feet went through it, after which they issued the 14-day notice on 19 February 2024. The floor was repaired on 13 March 2024.
There is no photographic evidence showing the hole. The issue was included in the 14-day notice on 19 February 2024 and addressed on 13 March 2024. There is insufficient evidence to establish that the landlord has breached their obligations, and the claim is dismissed. Fence
The tenant states that the fence along one of the property boundaries was leaning and in poor condition. They feared it was unstable and may fall, posing a risk of injury to their children. The tenant has produced photographs showing the fence, which is 1.8 metres high, wooden, deteriorating, and leaning toward the tenant’s property.
The tenant states they raised concerns about the fence at inspections but cannot recall specific dates. They included the issue in their 14-day notice on 19 February 2024 and again in an email dated 27 February 2024. The tenant stated that their immediate neighbours were also concerned about the fence. The tenant states the landlord asked for the neighbours contact details, but nothing happened. The tenant states that they had been told by the neighbour they were willing to share the cost of replacing the fence, but the owner declined. However, there is no evidence to support this.
The landlord states that upon receiving the 14-day notice, they had the fence checked on 13 March 2024. They cannot recall the matter being raised before this date. The handypersons invoice states “Finally checked fences, they appear stable, with any loose paling re – nailed to rails.” Having inspected the fence themselves the landlord states, while leaning, the fence did not pose an imminent risk of falling.
The tenant states that the fence was not repaired as stated by the handyperson and that loose boards were not reattached. The tenant has produced a photograph, they state was taken on 28 August 2024, which they claim shows loose boards and exposed nails.
Although some sections of the fence are leaning and appear unsightly, the evidence does not establish an imminent risk of collapse. The fence is old, has been added to over years and appears to have been on a lean for some time. The photograph produced from 24 August 2024 does not clearly show any loose boards or exposed nails. While the fence shows signs of general deterioration, based on the available evidence I am not satisfied that there has been a breach, and the claim is dismissed. Leak in ceiling / mould and moisture.
The tenant states that they noticed a crack in the ceiling in one of the bedrooms and water marks on the wall in the living room. They reported this to the landlord on 12 February 2024. The landlord asked if there were any signs of water or leaking, to which the tenant replied there was not. The tenant states they included the matter in the 14-day notice and then raised the matter during an inspection on 23 February 2024 but that nothing was done until August 2024.
The tenant states that approximately six weeks before the end of the tenancy, water leaked through the ceiling crack in the bedroom, dripping onto and tripping a power board. However, the email sent by the tenant to the landlord on 05 August 2024 following the incident does not describe the incident and simply states “leak and hole / cracking in ceiling”.
The tenant claims that the property was affected by dampness and mould, which impacted their health and the health of the occupants, which improved when they moved out.
The tenant has produced four photographs showing what they claim are a crack in the ceiling, mould in the corner where the wall meets the ceiling, mould, and torn wallpaper on the wall above a skirting board, a wall with discoloration, and water marks running from the where the ceiling meets the wall.
The landlord states that the hole in the ceiling and roof was investigated on 13 March 2024. The handyperson reported “Investigate hole in bedroom ceiling. Hole not caused by a water leak, but likely a knock of some sort,” suggesting that the tenant may have been responsible.
Upon receiving the tenant’s email on 05 August 2024, the landlord engaged a plumber. The plumbers invoice states they attended on 02 August 2024 to investigate a leak behind the toilet and the roof. The invoice notes: “Travelled to site have jumped on the roof and replace a few nails that were popped up in the areas of the leak, 90% of these were very rusty so was definitely leaking.”
The landlord argues that the photographs do not show actual leaking, they do not clearly show visible water stains, and that the areas of marking and any other discoloration is consistent with fair wear and tear relative to the age of the property. They argue that the photographs produced are insufficient to prove that the property suffered widespread dampness and mould issues.
The photographs do not show any actual leaking. I accept the landlord’s submission. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the property suffered excessive dampness and mould.
Based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that when reported the landlord has failed to respond appropriately. In February 2024, the tenant reported a crack in the ceiling, there was no report of any actual leaking. The landlord investigated the crack and deemed it not to have been the result of a leak. In August 2024, the tenant reported an active leak. This was investigated shortly afterward by someone more qualified who identified and repaired possible sources of leaking.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately. I am not satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligations. The claim is dismissed. Kitchen drawer
The tenant states that the front of one of the kitchen drawers came off. In a text message dated 02 August 2022, they informed the landlord. “I’ve had to tape a draw together that had previously been broken and someone had obviously glued back together.” A photograph has been produced.
The tenant states thereafter they regularly raised the issue during property inspections, but nothing was done. The next documented evidence of the drawer being raised appears to be a text message from 23 January 2024, worded similarly to that sent earlier.
The landlord states that they had become aware of the issue in 2023 but other issues had been given priority. The drawer was not repaired until the end of the tenancy.
In this case I am satisfied that there has been a breach. However, based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that the loss of amenity experienced by the tenant was significant. I award compensation of $150.00. Carpet
The tenant states that before commencement of the tenancy they had been told by the property manager, who no longer works for the landlord, that it would be replaced before they moved in. The tenant states that the owner changed their mind. During the tenancy, the carpet continued to deteriorate, which they regularly raised as an issue.
The tenant states that the landlord provided mats, and they were forced to use duct tape to cover frayed areas posing a trip hazard. In early March 2024, vinyl flooring was installed to replace the worst affected areas: by the ranchslider entry to the lounge and one of the bedrooms. Some work was also done on joiners, but that other areas remained unrepaired.
The tenant has produced photographs of the carpet, showing a line of threadbare carpet across the living room, duct taped over, another threadbare line across a doorway, and three up close photographs showing areas where the carpet has come away from joiners. Aside from these specific areas the carpet appears to be in a reasonable condition.
The landlord questions the date of some photographs. The landlord has produced a text message sent by the tenant to a previous property manager in August 2020, stating “. I am happy for the carpet to stay for now, less stressful for the kids....” However, on 18 May 2021, the tenant sent an email to the property manager expressing concern that the carpet issue remained unresolved.
The next documented evidence of the matter being raised is in August 2022, where the tenant again voiced concerns about the carpet. A text message in 2024 references the tenant’s expectation that the carpet should have been replaced four years prior.
There is sufficient evidence to find that the tenant was more likely than not promised a carpet replacement, but this did not eventuate. While the carpet is generally in a reasonable condition there were some clear trip hazards. I am satisfied that the landlord has failed to maintain the carpet in a reasonable condition.
The tenant states that they and their children regularly cut their feet on protruding carpet nails and suffered injury, although no corroborating evidence, such as photographs, have been provided. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the tenant failed to get what they bargained and that there has been a loss of amenity. I award the tenant $600.00. Shrubs
On 27 February 2024, the tenant reported a concern that Yucca plants in the garden had grown to the extent they were causing damage to the exterior of the house. The plants were cut down and stumps poisoned on 07 September 2024. Although the plants were not addressed until after the end of the tenancy, on the evidence, I am not satisfied there has been any loss to the tenant. The claim is dismissed. Garage door.
The tenant states that shortly after the commencement of the tenancy, the garage roller door came off its runners on one side, making it difficult to operate. Despite raising this with the landlord the matter remained unresolved. The tenant further states that the other side came off its rollers and struck them in the head but did not cause injury. Again, the tenant raised the issue, but nothing was done, and it remained unresolved at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord accepts this breach.
The tenant’s ability to use the garage was significantly impacted from the commencement of the tenancy. I award the tenant compensation for loss of amenity of $1,200.00. Exemplary damages
Section 109(2)(b) of the Act provides that any claim for exemplary damages under section 45(1)(b) must be made within 12 months after the date the unlawful act occurred. Although not expressly stated in the Residential Tenancies Act, I consider that this provision should applied consistently with the Limitation Act 2010.
In this case, the 12 months in section 109(2)(b), begins when the tenant ought reasonably to have become aware of the landlord’s failure to meet their obligations. In other words, the time starts from when the tenant ought reasonably to have been aware that the landlord had failed provide or maintain the property in a reasonable condition.
In this case the tenant had actual knowledge of potential claims regarding carpet, garage door, and kitchen drawer between 2020 and 2022. The tenant’s claim was lodged on lodged on 19 September 2022. As more than 12 months has elapsed, I am therefore unable to award exemplary damages for those breaches.
The possible breach regarding the guttering was discovered on or about 12 February 2024. Although the claim was lodged within 12 months, I am not satisfied that the breach was intentionally committed by the landlord, and I decline to award exemplary damages. Costs.
Because [The applicant/s] has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
Both parties seek name 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.
Assessed globally I am of the opinion that both parties have been sufficiently successful in these proceedings, and both are granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4983369 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4983369 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions