What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5073128 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 5073128?

Compensation: S45(1)(b) and (c) of t…: $552.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: S45(1)(b) of the RTA b…: $2,357.14 awarded to tenant; Compensation: S45(1)(b) of the RTA b…: $662.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: S45(1)(b) of the RTA b…: $550.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5073128?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5073128?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11778731-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5073128 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 5073128?

Compensation: S45(1)(b) and (c) of t…: $552.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: S45(1)(b) of the RTA b…: $2,357.14 awarded to tenant; Compensation: S45(1)(b) of the RTA b…: $662.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: S45(1)(b) of the RTA b…: $550.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5073128?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5073128?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11778731-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5073128 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5073128 — net $4,149.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: S45(1)(b) of the RTA breach-House alarm	$550.00	S45(1)(b) of the RTA breach-House alarm
Compensation: S45(1)(b) of the RTA breach- Curtains	$2,357.14	S45(1)(b) of the RTA breach- Curtains
Compensation: S45(1)(b) of the RTA breach-Door locks	$662.86	S45(1)(b) of the RTA breach-Door locks
Compensation: S45(1)(b) and (c) of the RTA breach-Oven	$552.86	S45(1)(b) and (c) of the RTA breach-Oven
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,149.86
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,149.86

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5073128 — net $4,149.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: S45(1)(b) of the RTA breach-House alarm	$550.00	S45(1)(b) of the RTA breach-House alarm
Compensation: S45(1)(b) of the RTA breach- Curtains	$2,357.14	S45(1)(b) of the RTA breach- Curtains
Compensation: S45(1)(b) of the RTA breach-Door locks	$662.86	S45(1)(b) of the RTA breach-Door locks
Compensation: S45(1)(b) and (c) of the RTA breach-Oven	$552.86	S45(1)(b) and (c) of the RTA breach-Oven
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,149.86
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,149.86

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
Connolly Gear Limited As Agent For Josh & Mitch Franklin & Cunningham must pay [the tenants’] $4617.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
Connolly Gear Limited As Agent For Josh & Mitch Franklin & Cunningham must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 5pm on Wednesday 14 May 2025: a. The remaining ceiling gib board must be assessed for any further damage from the prior leak of wastewater from the toilet above. If any of the remaining gib has been damaged by wastewater, and needs replacing, that must be carried out to ensure no further wastewater odour permeates the room; and b. The hole in the downstairs toilet ceiling must be fully repaired, plastered and repainted.
If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 3 above, then the tenants may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $4,000.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.

Reasons

Both parties attended the rehearing of the tenants claims today, that were previously heard by Adjudicator Ryken on 13 January 2025.
A rehearing of the tenants’ claims was granted on 3 March 2025, after Mr Scott McCorquodale successfully proved that the landlord had been unable to submit its evidence in defence of the tenants’ claims due to not having received the original notice of hearing and therefore not being present at the 13 January 2025 hearing.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Proving claims in the Tribunal
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b) and (c) obligations to the tenants?

The tenants say the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) and (c) of the RTA obligations to them.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is 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”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires the landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment as far as they apply to the premises.
Breaching any of these s45(1) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
I note that, while this is a remedy open to the Tribunal to consider, the tenants confirmed at today’s hearing that they are not seeking exemplary damages.
General damages may also be awarded for proven breaches of s45(1) of the RTA in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. The tenants have confirmed that this is the category of remedy they are seeking. Failure to maintain
Tenants have a duty, under section 40(1)(d) RTA, to advise a landlord of any defects. They should do this promptly and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before becoming liable for any failure to do so.
The tenants say the landlord has failed to investigate and repair several defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. I consider each issue in turn below. House alarm
The house alarm is included as a chattel to be provided by the landlord on the tenancy agreement. The tenants claim that the house alarm has not worked since the beginning of the tenancy on 4 October 2024. They say the alarm panel was not lit and they were never given a code for the alarm by the landlord.
The tenants submitted evidence that shows they raised this issue with the landlord pm 13 October 2024, by emailing it a 14-day notice to remedy the defect and that the landlord acknowledged receipt of the tenant’s 14-day notice on 14 October 2024 by return email.
The parties agrees that a residential property maintenance contractor, the landlord routinely uses, was sent to the address on 28 October 2024 and confirmed the house alarm was not working. The tenants gave evidence that the contractor fixed a hot water tap in the laundry, but no other maintenance issues were addressed, and they stated that the contractor informed them that he “didn’t know how to diagnose or fix the alarm as he was not a specialist”.
There are five tenants, four of whom attended the hearing today. They all gave consistent evidence about the house alarm not working.
The landlord stated the prior property manager should have never placed the house alarm on the chattels list and should have informed the tenants prior to them signing up to the tenancy that the alarm had been decommissioned and the back up battery removed. I find this is a moot point as the tenants were led to believe in the tenancy agreement, they signed that a fully functional security alarm was part of the amenities they were paying rent to enjoy.
The parties confirmed at today’s hearing that the house alarm was repaired/replaced by 31 January 2025. The landlord could not confirm the exact date of the repair/replacement, so I have taken the 31 January 2025 as the repair/replacement date.
The issue I must determine is whether the landlord investigated and repaired the broken house alarm within a reasonable timeframe, in all the circumstances, after the tenants reported the issue to it. For the following reasons, I am satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, it did not. a. The tenants reasonably expected to have the use of a fully functional security alarm when they signed up to the tenancy; b. When the tenants discovered the security alarm did not work, they sent the landlord a 14-day notice to remedy the defect on 13 October 2024; c. While a contract “handyman” visited the premise on 28 October 2024, he confirmed to the tenants the alarm was not working and he did not have the expertise to diagnose or repair the security alarm. The landlord could not confirm from its notes whether the contractor reported to it that he could not diagnose or fix the fault and did not provide any evidence to show that after this time it took any further steps to investigate and remedy the known fault; d. The tenants suffered the loss of amenity of the security alarm for a period of 17 weeks from when the issue was first reported to the landlord; e. Repairing or replacing a broken security alarm is not a complex matter and I consider 17 weeks to be an unreasonable length of time for the issue to remain unresolved.
I find that the landlord has intentionally committed an unlawful act when it failed to repair and maintain the security alarm to a reasonable standard in all the circumstances for a period of 15 weeks and 5 days, from 13 October 2024 to 31 January 2025. I award the tenants compensation of $35.00 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants because of not being able to maintain the level of security over their home and belongings for such a lengthy period when they had reasonably expected to be able to achieve the level of security a working alarm would have afforded them. This is a total rent rebate of $550.00 ($35 x 15 weeks= $525.00. $35 divided by 7 x 5 =$25). Curtains
Curtains are listed as a chattel to be provided by the landlord on the tenancy agreement. The tenants gave evidence that since the beginning of the tenancy on 4 October 2024, all the bedrooms except one, were missing curtains. The tenants gave evidence that there are no coverings on any of the windows in the bedrooms, except one. The tenants also gave evidence that the kitchen has blinds, but no other common areas, such as the lounge, do.
The tenants confirmed the property had curtains and blinds when they first viewed it, but the majority of these were missing at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord confirmed these window coverings belonged to the prior tenants who took the coverings at the end of their tenancy. Further, the landlord stated that it was not a legal requirement for landlords to provide window coverings to tenants and that the request from the tenants for window coverings in their bedrooms and lounge areas were a nice to have and not something a landlord is required to provide to any tenants. The tenor of the comments made by the landlord during the hearing is that it is not required to provide replacements for any curtains not in situ at the start of the tenancy, despite the fact the tenants had been shown the property with window coverings in all bedrooms and the lounge and had signed up to the tenancy under a reasonable belief that these soft furnishings would remain in the premise during their tenancy.
I do not agree with the landlord that it has no responsibility to ensure rental premises have adequate window coverings to assist with heat retention in the premises, provide privacy for tenants as well as a level of safety/security that comes with no being visible to persons outside the premise, particularly in the early hours of the morning or at night when the tenants had lights on and were increasingly visible to their neighbours when dressing and undressing.
In the context of New Zealand's Healthy Homes Standards, curtains play a crucial role in ensuring a warm and healthy living environment, especially for tenants. While not explicitly mandated in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, effective curtains are strongly recommended as a cost-effective way to minimize heat loss and improve comfort. The standards primarily focus on other aspects of insulation, heating, and ventilation, with curtains acting as an important supplementary measure.
So, whilst landlords are not legally obligated to provide curtains or blinds in rental properties, the premise must meet basic habitability standards, including having some form of window coverings for privacy, insulation and light control.
The tenants raised the issue with the landlord on 13 October 2024 in a 14-day notice to remedy the lack of privacy and security they were suffering because of insufficient window coverings in bedrooms and key shared spaces. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the 14-day notice on 14 October 2024 in a reply email to the tenant.
The contractor/handyman that the landlord sent to the property on 28 October 2024 did not address this issue.
The tenants gave consistent evidence on this issue and confirmed that the lack of curtains, especially in the bedrooms, has significantly impacted their ability to use and enjoy the property. The tenants’ state that not having curtains in the bedrooms has meant that they have been without privacy from 4 October 2024 to 31 January 2025, which is a period of 17 weeks. The property is down a shared driveway and very close to two other houses. The tenants claim that without curtains on their bedroom windows, there is no privacy from neighbours who can see directly into their bedrooms. The tenants feel unsafe sleeping without curtains and leaving valuables in the home in plain view for people to see when they are absent. The tenants stressed that the lack of curtains made them feel very unsafe and exposed. Without adequate window coverings, the tenants could not keep out the sunlight that could damage their belongings during the day nor keep any heat in the rooms at night.
The issue I must determine is whether the landlord investigated and repaired the missing curtains within a reasonable timeframe after the tenant reported the issue to it. For the following reasons, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, it did not. a. The tenants reasonably expected to have window coverings in all their bedrooms and the lounge when they signed up to the tenancy; b. When the tenants discovered several of the window coverings were missing at the start of the tenancy, they sent the landlord a 14-day notice to remedy the defect on 13 October 2024; c. While a contract “handyman” visited the premise on 28 October 2024, he did nothing to remedy the lack of window coverings and the landlord not only failed to provide any evidence to show that after this time it took any further steps to remedy the known issue, it argued that it had no obligation to provide window coverings for the tenants bedroom and the lounge if they were missing at the start of the tenancy. It saw the tenants’ privacy and security concerns as the tenants’ problem and not one that it needed to remedy, until after the Tribunal issued a work order requiring it to meet its obligation to the tenants to ensure they had adequate window coverings in their bedrooms and lounge; d. The tenants suffered the loss of amenity of their bedrooms and lounge for a period of 15 weeks and 5 days from when the issue was first reported to the landlord and the accompanying loss of privacy and security of their home as they were extremely exposed to the neighbours; e. Replacing window coverings is not a complex or expensive matter and I consider 17 weeks to be an unreasonable length of time for the tenants to have to live in a goldfish bowl in rooms where they suffered considerable stress about lack of privacy, loss of heat in their rooms, and decreased levels of security for them and their belongings.
I find that the landlord has intentionally committed an unlawful act when it failed to provide the tenants with adequate privacy and security of their belongings in their bedrooms and lounge for a period of 15 weeks and 5 days, from 13 October 2024 to 31 January 2025. I award the tenants compensation of $150.00 per week for the significant loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants because of not being able to maintain the level of privacy and security over their belongings for such a lengthy period, when they had reasonably expected to have been provided with window coverings in their bedrooms and lounge. In addition, the tenants were unable to protect their belongings from sunlight damage during the day or preserve heat in the rooms at night. This is a total rent rebate of $2,357.14 ($150 x 15 weeks= $2,250.00. $150 divided by 7 x 5 =$107.14). Door lock
The tenants confirmed the main entrance to the kitchen/dining room from outside the property is via a tri-fold door. The landlord says this door opens on to a private courtyard that is not visible from the road.
The tenants also confirmed the first section of the tri-fold door is secured by a twist lock and the second section had security bolts top and bottom that were. designed to hold section two and three of the door securely in place. The tenants gave evidence the bottom bolt was broken when the tenancy commenced. Further, they say that if they pushed on the second or third sections of the door, it created a gap a few inches wide and that the door was insecure and flimsy and could never secured properly. In addition, it constantly let cold air into the house, in breach of the healthy homes draught stopping standard.
The tenants claim this broken security bolt was an additional security risk to the other identified security risks caused by the broken security alarm and lack of curtains at the property.
The tenants first raised the issue with the landlord in an email dated 7 October 2024.
The tenants also raised this issue with the contract handyman when he came to undertake some other repair and maintenance work on 28 October 2024 but he informed the tenants he had not been asked by the landlord to investigate or repair the broken bolt.
The tenants sent the landlord a follow up email on 6 November 2024 but the bolt remained broken until after the work order was issued by the Tribunal in its 16 January 2025 Order.
The parties confirmed this security bolt was not replaced until 31 January 2025.
The issue I must determine is whether the landlord investigated and repaired the broken security bolt within a reasonable timeframe after the tenants reported the issue to it. I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, the evidence shows it did not.
I find that the landlord has intentionally committed an unlawful act when it failed to repair and maintain the security bolts on the tri-fold door to a reasonable standard in all the circumstances for a period of 16 weeks and 4 days, from 7 October 2024 to 31 January 2025. I award the tenants compensation of $40.00 per week for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants because of not being able to secure the door and maintain the level of security over their home and belongings for such a lengthy period when they had reasonably expected to be able to achieve the level of security the security bolt on the second section of the tri-fold door would have afforded them. This is a total rent rebate of $662.86 ($40 x 16 weeks= $640.00 and $40 divided by 7 x 4 =$22.86). Oven
The tenants gave evidence that the oven worked intermittently, was difficult to turn on and off as the face plate had been damaged and reglued at some stage prior to the start of their tenancy and that created issues with pushing the start button in enough to turn it on and the only way to make it work was to keep holding down more than one button at a time and banging them hard in different combinations until the oven turned on. Then they could only turn it off by turning the switch off at the wall. In addition, they say the oven would intermittently turn itself off and they then could not get it started again. The tenants also gave evidence the seal around the oven was loose and a lot of heat escapes, which means that it takes significantly longer than usual for the oven to reach the required temperature and it doesn’t remain at the required temperature.
The tenant provided an email they sent to the landlord on 6 November 2024 raising the issues with the oven, but they say the oven was not repaired at all and was finally replaced on 31 January 2025 and this was in response to the work order made by the Tribunal in its 16 January 2025 Order.
The landlord stated that it had tested the oven during its exit inspection for the previous tenants, which it carried out the same day as this tenancy commenced. It confirms the oven worked when it was turned on and that it turned on with ease.
After hearing the tenants’ evidence, the landlord continued to reiterate during the hearing that the oven did work, albeit with great difficulty at times. It agreed the symbols on the buttons had faded and says the tenants did not know which button to push to turn the oven on. The landlord also stated that by pushing two buttons at once the tenants were inadvertently setting the timer, which is why it was then only intermittently turning on and then on occasions would turn off again part way through cooking. Its defence is that the that the tenants just did not know how to use the oven and the lack of understanding of an oven is not a cause for compensation. Further, the landlord says it only replaced the oven to improve the property and not because it had an obligation to do so by law.
The tenants confirmed they had located the manufacturers user guide for the oven and had tried to use it according to the manufacturer’s instructions. They say the oven did not work when they did this, and they had considered the timer issue. They refute the landlord’s claim it was operator error and claim the oven was so faulty they were barely able to use it in the first four months of their tenancy.
The landlord says the tenants raised a considerable amount of repair and maintenance issues when their tenancy commenced, and it has addressed the majority of these promptly and in a reasonable time frame. It says that the issues such as the oven were not urgent in its view as the oven did work, just not with ease and it just considered the tenants concerns as being their frustration because they were using the oven incorrectly.
It is of note that the tenants gave evidence that the contractor handyman had looked at the oven on 28 October 2024 because the tenants raised it with him, and he confirmed that in his opinion the oven was old and needed replacing as it was not user friendly. It did not turn on or off at times, was unreliable, the writing had worn off near the buttons, and the seal was in urgent need of replacement. The landlord says the contractor never conveyed this opinion to it and refutes the contractor would have said this to the tenants. Additionally, he says it is hearsay evidence.
I am satisfied that the landlord intentionally failed to fully investigate the tenants’ concerns to ascertain whether the oven did work reliably or to check the tenants were using it correctly. It did not take any of these investigative steps before deciding not to repair/replace the oven in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances.
The RTA does not directly regulate the standard of rental properties. However, it reinforces that landlords must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. One such requirement is set out in the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR).
Section 7(2)(b) of the HIR requires kitchens to have adequate means of preparing and cooking food, including both boiling and baking. This usually means a fully functional oven and stovetop. The HIR and s45(1)(c) of the RTA both place obligations on landlords for ensuring this requirement is met.
The tenants evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to ensure the oven was functional and in a reasonable condition at the time it rented out the premise to the tenants and in doing so it also failed to meet the relevant building, health, and safety standards, including the HIR.
I find that the landlord intentionally breached its obligations under s45(1)(b) to maintain the oven in a reasonable state of repair and intentionally failed to meet its s7(2)(b) of the HIR obligations to provide the tenants with an adequate means of baking food in a reliable and fully functional oven for a period of 12 weeks and 2 days, from 6 November 2024 to 31 January 2025. Repairing or replacing an oven is not particularly complex and I consider this delay to be unreasonable.
I award the tenants compensation of $45.00 per week for the significant loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenants because of not being having access to adequate reliable baking facilities in their own home. This is a total rent rebate of $552.86 ($45 x 12 weeks= $540.00. $45 divided by 7 x 2 =$12.86). Work Orders
The tenants raised a new repair and maintenance issue at todays’ hearing. The landlord agreed for me to hear about the tenants concerns in relation to the downstairs ceiling toilet that had a gaping hole in it since they raised the issue of a leak in the toilet ceiling on 23 January 2025.
The parties confirmed that the source of the leak was a wastewater pipe from the toilet on the level above. The landlord confirmed it had the leak attended to promptly and as part of that process a part of the gib ceiling was removed and the hole left to allow the remaining parts of the gib to dry out.
The tenants have complained of a wastewater smell coming from the open ceiling and about flakes of paint and dust falling on them like sow when they try to use the toilet. As such, the tenants sent a follow up email about these concerns on 12 February 2025. The tenants were told that the ceiling needed to fully dry out before the hole could be covered in. The tenants say they got no response for the landlord. So, they followed up again on 16 February 2025, 1, 4 and 7 April 2025 by email, called on 8 April 2025 and emailed again on 11 April 2025.
The tenants want the problem fixed. They are frustrated at the landlord’s lack of communication.
The landlord confirmed he only responds to tenant communications if he has an update and just ignores follow up messages until he has something to tell them. This results in the tenants feeling unheard and like the landlord is doing nothing. They conveyed how important it is to them to be told that the landlord has tried to get hold of the owner and has not yet had a response to quotes or they are still awaiting further quotes etc rather than being left in silence.
The landlord also confirmed it has had two companies provide quotes for the ceiling repair and has been in touch with owner but had no response. Further, the landlord stated it had made a decision to go with the cheaper quote and deduct the cost from rent before it is paid to the owner as the operations manager has approved the repair.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds, the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

I find that the landlord has taken longer than is reasonable in all the circumstances to repair the downstairs toilet ceiling and order that: a. The remaining ceiling gib board must be assessed for any further damage from the prior leak of wastewater from the toilet above. If any of the remaining gib has been damaged by wastewater, and needs replacing, that must be carried out to ensure no further wastewater odour permeates the room; and b. The hole in the downstairs toilet ceiling must be fully repaired, plastered and repainted.
If the landlord fails to comply with this order, then the tenants may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $4,000.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.

OTHER ORDERS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants have wholly succeeded in these proceedings, and I do not consider publication is in the public interest and justified because of the tenants’ conduct.
Non-publication of the tenants’ names and identifying details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5073128 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5073128 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions