What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5142509 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 5142509?

Compensation: Failure to maintain- t…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Storage Costs: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Termination without gr…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Truck Costs: $704.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Waterblasting: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5142509?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5142509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11889630-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5142509 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 5142509?

Compensation: Failure to maintain- t…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Storage Costs: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Termination without gr…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Truck Costs: $704.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Waterblasting: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5142509?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5142509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11889630-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5142509 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5142509 — net $4,081.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain- termites	$1,000.00	Failure to maintain- termites
Compensation: Termination without grounds	$1,000.00	Termination without grounds
Compensation: Waterblasting	$350.00	Waterblasting
Compensation: Storage costs	$1,000.00	Storage costs
Compensation: Truck costs	$704.00	Truck costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,081.00
Bond	$1,040.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,081.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

The Tenants attended the hearing. The Landlord did not attend.
The burden of proof rests on the Tenants and they must prove their case on a balance of probability. This means that the Tenants must bring their evidence to prove their claim is more likely than not correct.
The Tenant has applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Refund of the bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. Breach of Healthy Home Standards
The tenant submits that the landlord breached the Healthy Homes Standards in relation to a serious pest infestation in the kitchen. This caused the kitchen to be in a dangerous and unhygienic state. The Tenants noted an infestation of bora throughout the kitchen, contaminating their food and damaging the wood of the kitchen cupboards. The Tenants advised the Landlord around April 2022, several times in emails and during inspections. The Landlord responded that they would have to replace the kitchen. The kitchen never got replaced during the tenancy. The Tenant offered to find quotes for a new kitchen and offered to move out temporarily whilst this was being undertaken. A fumigator was sent who advised the mites were hiding in the kitchen cupboard and eating through the wooden doors. He recommended pest control treatment immediately because they were spreading fast. The Tenant provided an email from the fumigator and photographs of the mites in food and cupboard.
The Healthy Homes Standards set out minimum requirements for rental properties in New Zealand in five key areas: heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping. These standards aim to ensure rental homes are warm, dry, and healthy for tenants to live in.
In considering the evidence, a pest infestation does not fall under any of the Healthy Home standards. The claim is therefore dismissed. Compensation for failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
The Tenant claimed the Landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant claims reimbursement for the cost of water blasting because the landlord failed to maintain safe outdoor surfaces resulting in slippery slime on concrete paths and decking. This posed a safety risk, especially for the tenant’s elderly mother and wheelchair-bound spouse. The issue was raised with the Landlord during a December 2022 inspection and photos were taken in January 2023 (though not provided to the Tribunal). The tenant stated that water blasting had been done annually in past years after a prior slip incident. Despite this, the landlord refused to continue the practice, saying she was not obliged to follow previous owners' maintenance. The tenant arranged water blasting in February 2023 and submitted an invoice for $350.00 to the property manager. An email from the landlord confirmed they would not reimburse the cost.
In considering the evidence, I find the landlord failed to maintain a safe outdoor surface and is liable for the cost of water blasting. Although there was no corroborating evidence that the Tenant’s mother slipped as a result of the slime, there was still an obligation to ensure the removal of the slime. I award the Tenant $350.00 for the water blasting and $1000.00 compensation for failing to maintain the concrete over an extended period of time. Compensation for the unsanitary kitchen
The Tenants claimed compensation for the unsanitary kitchen due to the mites. The evidence has been outlined previously at paragraph 6.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord did fail to maintain the property with the infestation of mites in the kitchen. The persuasive evidence being the reason given by the Landlord to terminate, the email from the fumigator and the photographs of the mite. Given this issue was ongoing over two years, I find an appropriate amount to award as compensation is $1000.00.
The amounts ordered are proved. Compensation for new fixtures
The tenants sought compensation for approximately $2,700.00 worth of fixtures they installed to improve the property, including a backyard spotlight, recess lights, a mirror, a new towel rail, and double light fixtures. The Tenants submitted the Landlord consented to these alterations. While they stated the invoice was provided to the landlord, no copy was available for the Tribunal. After the tenancy ended, they attempted to retrieve a $120.00 bedroom mirror but were denied access, as the tenancy had already been terminated. Photographs of the bathroom after the fixtures were installed was provided by the Tenant.
Section 42 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that Tenants cannot attach fixtures or make changes (renovations, alterations, or additions) to the property unless: it is allowed under the Tenancy Agreement or the Tenant obtains written consent from the Landlord. Before the tenancy ends, the Tenants can remove any fixtures they have added as long as it does not cause irreparable damage. Any fixtures not removed by the Tenant by the end of the tenancy become the Landlords property.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord is not liable for the new fixtures the Tenants installed to improve the property. They did not remove these before the end of the tenancy and are therefore the property of the Landlord.
The claim is dismissed. Compensation for lack of grounds for termination
The tenants are seeking compensation on the grounds that the termination of their tenancy lacked valid grounds. The landlord ended the tenancy citing kitchen renovations, despite the tenants offering either to remain in the property during the renovations or to return once they were completed. The tenants vacated the premises on 5 June 2025. However, they later discovered that new tenants had moved in just two weeks after the termination. This was in direct contradiction to earlier assurances from the landlord that they would be given the first opportunity to return.
Upon seeing new occupants at the property, the tenants contacted the property manager, who confirmed that the new tenants had moved in at the owner's instruction. The tenants believe the real reason for the termination was to relet the property at a higher rent.
The termination has caused significant stress and financial hardship for the Tenants. They incurred costs for moving and storage, and are currently living with friends. Finding alternative accommodation has been particularly difficult due to the husband’s medical needs—specifically, asthma and mobility issues that make stairs unsafe. Most available rentals are unsuitable and often exceed $950.00 per week. In addition to compensation for emotional distress, the tenants seek reimbursement for the removal truck and storage expenses. The Tenant provided invoices for the storage and removal truck. They also provided medical records for the Tenant’s husband.
In considering the evidence, I find the tenancy was terminated without valid grounds. Although the Tenants did not provide photographs of the new Tenants occupying the property or confirmation from the landlord, I find the Tenants to be honest and credible in their responses. They answered truthfully even when the response was not supportive of their claim.
For these reasons, I accept the renovation of the kitchen was not the ground for termination. I find the Tenant incurred truck removal costs and storage costs which they would not have otherwise incurred however I have not awarded the full claim for storage. There was no evidence from the Tenants as to the exact efforts they had taken to find a new rental property which would justify the storage fees. For this reason, I have awarded the truck removal costs and part of the storage costs of $1000.00.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim, name suppression is granted and the Landlord must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5142509 — net $4,081.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain- termites	$1,000.00	Failure to maintain- termites
Compensation: Termination without grounds	$1,000.00	Termination without grounds
Compensation: Waterblasting	$350.00	Waterblasting
Compensation: Storage costs	$1,000.00	Storage costs
Compensation: Truck costs	$704.00	Truck costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,081.00
Bond	$1,040.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,081.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

The Tenants attended the hearing. The Landlord did not attend.
The burden of proof rests on the Tenants and they must prove their case on a balance of probability. This means that the Tenants must bring their evidence to prove their claim is more likely than not correct.
The Tenant has applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Refund of the bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. Breach of Healthy Home Standards
The tenant submits that the landlord breached the Healthy Homes Standards in relation to a serious pest infestation in the kitchen. This caused the kitchen to be in a dangerous and unhygienic state. The Tenants noted an infestation of bora throughout the kitchen, contaminating their food and damaging the wood of the kitchen cupboards. The Tenants advised the Landlord around April 2022, several times in emails and during inspections. The Landlord responded that they would have to replace the kitchen. The kitchen never got replaced during the tenancy. The Tenant offered to find quotes for a new kitchen and offered to move out temporarily whilst this was being undertaken. A fumigator was sent who advised the mites were hiding in the kitchen cupboard and eating through the wooden doors. He recommended pest control treatment immediately because they were spreading fast. The Tenant provided an email from the fumigator and photographs of the mites in food and cupboard.
The Healthy Homes Standards set out minimum requirements for rental properties in New Zealand in five key areas: heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping. These standards aim to ensure rental homes are warm, dry, and healthy for tenants to live in.
In considering the evidence, a pest infestation does not fall under any of the Healthy Home standards. The claim is therefore dismissed. Compensation for failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
The Tenant claimed the Landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant claims reimbursement for the cost of water blasting because the landlord failed to maintain safe outdoor surfaces resulting in slippery slime on concrete paths and decking. This posed a safety risk, especially for the tenant’s elderly mother and wheelchair-bound spouse. The issue was raised with the Landlord during a December 2022 inspection and photos were taken in January 2023 (though not provided to the Tribunal). The tenant stated that water blasting had been done annually in past years after a prior slip incident. Despite this, the landlord refused to continue the practice, saying she was not obliged to follow previous owners' maintenance. The tenant arranged water blasting in February 2023 and submitted an invoice for $350.00 to the property manager. An email from the landlord confirmed they would not reimburse the cost.
In considering the evidence, I find the landlord failed to maintain a safe outdoor surface and is liable for the cost of water blasting. Although there was no corroborating evidence that the Tenant’s mother slipped as a result of the slime, there was still an obligation to ensure the removal of the slime. I award the Tenant $350.00 for the water blasting and $1000.00 compensation for failing to maintain the concrete over an extended period of time. Compensation for the unsanitary kitchen
The Tenants claimed compensation for the unsanitary kitchen due to the mites. The evidence has been outlined previously at paragraph 6.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord did fail to maintain the property with the infestation of mites in the kitchen. The persuasive evidence being the reason given by the Landlord to terminate, the email from the fumigator and the photographs of the mite. Given this issue was ongoing over two years, I find an appropriate amount to award as compensation is $1000.00.
The amounts ordered are proved. Compensation for new fixtures
The tenants sought compensation for approximately $2,700.00 worth of fixtures they installed to improve the property, including a backyard spotlight, recess lights, a mirror, a new towel rail, and double light fixtures. The Tenants submitted the Landlord consented to these alterations. While they stated the invoice was provided to the landlord, no copy was available for the Tribunal. After the tenancy ended, they attempted to retrieve a $120.00 bedroom mirror but were denied access, as the tenancy had already been terminated. Photographs of the bathroom after the fixtures were installed was provided by the Tenant.
Section 42 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that Tenants cannot attach fixtures or make changes (renovations, alterations, or additions) to the property unless: it is allowed under the Tenancy Agreement or the Tenant obtains written consent from the Landlord. Before the tenancy ends, the Tenants can remove any fixtures they have added as long as it does not cause irreparable damage. Any fixtures not removed by the Tenant by the end of the tenancy become the Landlords property.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord is not liable for the new fixtures the Tenants installed to improve the property. They did not remove these before the end of the tenancy and are therefore the property of the Landlord.
The claim is dismissed. Compensation for lack of grounds for termination
The tenants are seeking compensation on the grounds that the termination of their tenancy lacked valid grounds. The landlord ended the tenancy citing kitchen renovations, despite the tenants offering either to remain in the property during the renovations or to return once they were completed. The tenants vacated the premises on 5 June 2025. However, they later discovered that new tenants had moved in just two weeks after the termination. This was in direct contradiction to earlier assurances from the landlord that they would be given the first opportunity to return.
Upon seeing new occupants at the property, the tenants contacted the property manager, who confirmed that the new tenants had moved in at the owner's instruction. The tenants believe the real reason for the termination was to relet the property at a higher rent.
The termination has caused significant stress and financial hardship for the Tenants. They incurred costs for moving and storage, and are currently living with friends. Finding alternative accommodation has been particularly difficult due to the husband’s medical needs—specifically, asthma and mobility issues that make stairs unsafe. Most available rentals are unsuitable and often exceed $950.00 per week. In addition to compensation for emotional distress, the tenants seek reimbursement for the removal truck and storage expenses. The Tenant provided invoices for the storage and removal truck. They also provided medical records for the Tenant’s husband.
In considering the evidence, I find the tenancy was terminated without valid grounds. Although the Tenants did not provide photographs of the new Tenants occupying the property or confirmation from the landlord, I find the Tenants to be honest and credible in their responses. They answered truthfully even when the response was not supportive of their claim.
For these reasons, I accept the renovation of the kitchen was not the ground for termination. I find the Tenant incurred truck removal costs and storage costs which they would not have otherwise incurred however I have not awarded the full claim for storage. There was no evidence from the Tenants as to the exact efforts they had taken to find a new rental property which would justify the storage fees. For this reason, I have awarded the truck removal costs and part of the storage costs of $1000.00.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim, name suppression is granted and the Landlord must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5142509 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5142509 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions