What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5157952 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord and tenant’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5157952?

Failure To Maintain Gutters: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Failure To Maintain Hedge: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Less: Already Paid By Tenant: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Previous Order Application 5157952 D…: $2,198.27 awarded to landlord; Water To May 2025: $64.26 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5157952?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5157952?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12028181-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5157952 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord and tenant’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5157952?

Failure To Maintain Gutters: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Failure To Maintain Hedge: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Less: Already Paid By Tenant: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Previous Order Application 5157952 D…: $2,198.27 awarded to landlord; Water To May 2025: $64.26 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5157952?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5157952?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12028181-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5157952 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5157952 — net $464.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 5157952 dated	$2,198.27		Previous order application 5157952 dated
Water to May 2025	$64.26		Water to May 2025
Failure to maintain gutters		$450.00	Failure to maintain gutters
Failure to maintain hedge		$250.00	Failure to maintain hedge
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Less: already paid by tenant		$2,000.00	Less: already paid by tenant
Total award	$2,262.53	$2,727.00
Net award		$464.47
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$464.47

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5157952 — net $464.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 5157952 dated	$2,198.27		Previous order application 5157952 dated
Water to May 2025	$64.26		Water to May 2025
Failure to maintain gutters		$450.00	Failure to maintain gutters
Failure to maintain hedge		$250.00	Failure to maintain hedge
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Less: already paid by tenant		$2,000.00	Less: already paid by tenant
Total award	$2,262.53	$2,727.00
Net award		$464.47
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$464.47

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord and tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $464.47 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 19 June 2025. The tenant attended by telephone from overseas.
On 15 May 2025 the Tribunal terminated the tenancy for rent arrears as from 31 May 2025. The hearing was adjourned so that the tenant’s application, filed on 8 May 2025, could be served on the landlord.
On 21 May 2025 the tenant applied for a rehearing. For the reasons given below, this is dismissed.
The proceeding relates to a tenancy which started on 1 August 2020. The weekly rent was $580.00. Rehearing Application
The tenant said the landlord’s application had only been brought against herself. The tenant said that her ex-partner (who I will call Mr E) is also a tenant at the property. Neither party had been able to locate the written tenancy agreement. The tenant said the application should have named them both, as they were jointly liable.
The tenant said the Tribunal had terminated the tenancy, but the landlord had already given 90 days’ notice to terminate on the same day, and the order would affect her ability to rent in New Zealand. Additionally, her rationale for the rent arrears had not been heard. The tenant said she had given notice to terminate on 14 May 2025 and therefore, her liability for rent ended on 16 May 2025.
While the tenants are jointly and severally liable for rent, the landlord has only brought an application against one of them. The tenant is right that the bond has been lodged in their joint names, however, the landlord said the rent was paid by the tenant only and all their dealings were with her.
I remain of the view that the landlord was free to decide whether to pursue either or both tenants for rent arrears. There may be difficulties pursuing an overseas tenant, for example, or a tenant who is impecunious. The landlord can recover the rent arrears from either tenant because they are jointly liable. The landlord can enforce an order for payment by the tenants jointly against either one, or not at all. I do not consider that this point justifies a rehearing.
The tenant questioned why a termination order was made when a termination notice had been given. The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy and there were grounds for termination at the hearing on 15 May 2025. The landlord indicated that she would accept termination on 31 May 2025 because that was when the owner had to give vacant possession to the purchaser.
The Tribunal could have ordered immediate termination, but understood the premises were still occupied by the tenant’s family. The Tribunal had no grounds to decline to make a termination order.
The tenant challenged the Tribunal’s award of rent to 15 May 2025 in the sum of $4,130.00 (a net award of $2,198.27 after deduction of the bond). At the second hearing, the tenant said she had given notice to be removed from the tenancy and her liability for rent ended on 16 May 2025. The landlord commented that the notice concerned family violence, which to my recollection was the first time this was raised. I note that the tenant did not provide the withdrawal notice, or a police report she mentioned at the second hearing.
The notice of withdrawal is on the prescribed form and contains the prescribed information. The notice records that it was served electronically on 13 May 2025. It is accompanied by a statutory declaration which constitutes the necessary qualifying evidence.
The landlord said she did not believe the notice. I acknowledge that the ability of a withdrawing tenant to self-certify that they have suffered family violence could allow the right to withdraw to be misused (regulation 8(a) of the Residential Tenancies (Termination for Physical Assault by Tenant and Withdrawal Following Family Violence) Regulations 2022).
However, the Tribunal is unable to question whether there has been family violence. Section 77(7B) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine a dispute, so far as it raises a question whether, in respect of a tenant who gives notice accompanied by qualifying evidence under section 56B, the tenant has been a victim of family violence while a tenant of the premises. This means, in my opinion, that the tenant’s tenancy ended on 16 May 2025.
I decline to grant a rehearing because there has been no miscarriage of justice. The tenant has only been ordered to pay rent to 15 May 2025. Tenant’s Application
The tenant claimed that: • The premises were not Healthy Homes compliant. There were draughts from all doors and windows and mould in the bathroom. • There was no heating in the main living area. • The gutters and trees had not been maintained. The owner refused to remove tree branches that were cut down. • The landlord refused to urgently fix the hot water cylinder. • The sceptic tank was not regularly cleared. • A bedroom light was broken, and broken door handles were not fixed. Healthy Homes Standards
Both parties said the tenancy started on 1 August 2020. According to the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, and on the basis that the tenancy was not renewed, the premises had to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards by 1 July 2025.
The tenant said the property did not have a heat pump in the main living area, rather it was in the kitchen. The landlord said this was an open-plan area.
The tenant also complained about high electricity charges to heat the house because of the failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards, but no evidence was provided to support this.
A Healthy Homes Standards Report was obtained in about September 2023. This concluded that the premises complied with the Healthy Homes Standards. The property was free of large gaps in the windows, doors, and walls. There was both subfloor and ceiling insulation. There was a heat pump in the main living space and a bathroom extractor fan. The gutters and downpipes were identified as being intact and clear from obstructions. There is a comment below a photograph of a tradesman on a ladder, which implies that the gutters were cleaned.
Based on this report, I find that the premises complied with the Healthy Homes Standards in relation to heating and ventilation. Gutter Maintenance
Under section 45 of the Act the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair.
A landlord is not in breach of their maintenance obligation if they do not remedy a latent or hidden defect (Barfoot & Thompson v Casey (District Court Auckland, CIV 2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007)). This means that a landlord’s maintenance obligation is limited to observable or notified defects, and a tenant has an independent obligation to notify the landlord of damage or the need for repairs. Landlords must investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention in a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Limited (District Court Wellington, CIV 2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010)).
The tenant provided photographs showing the gutters were overgrown. She said they were not cleaned during the 5-year tenancy. The tenant said when it was raining, she could not open the window because water would run into the house from the gutter. The photographs were apparently taken on 30 April 2025.
Although the Healthy Homes report mentioned gutter cleaning, it is unclear if this was performed at the same time. The photograph of the assessor on the ladder seems to show some plant growth in the gutters. There is a note on the landlord’s file dated 12 September 2023: “Healthy Home Report – still need gutter cleaning & ground moisture barrier cloth to be fully compliant...”. An invoice dated 19 October 2023 confirms the installation of a ground moisture barrier and gutter cleaning. Given that the report included photographs of the ground moisture barrier, most likely the report was issued after these items had been addressed.
At some stage between October 2023 and April 2025, and as shown on the tenant’s photographs, the gutters needed to be cleaned. It is difficult to determine exactly how long this maintenance issue was left unattended. I consider however that the gutters would likely have needed clearing every year, especially considering the rural setting.
I find that the landlord breached its maintenance obligation. The gutters were not cleared for over a year. According to the tenant, this resulted in issues with moisture ingress. I award compensation of $450.00. Tree Maintenance
The tenant provided photographs of tall hedges grown right up to the side of the house and over the roof. The tenant said the shrubs were brushing up on the windows. The scraping noise scared her daughter and meant she could not use her bedroom.
There are text messages in November 2023 in which the tenant complained that tree waste has been left in their yard. The tenant said this was a fire hazard. The text messages appear to indicate that the owner was going to take the waste to the other side of the adjoining farm.
The tenant said the landlord refused to cut tree branches and only did so when the electricity company needed access to the meter. The tenant said she had requested tree trimming for over two years. There do not appear to be any requests in writing from the tenant for hedges or trees to be trimmed.
There were also photographs of large branches that had been cut down. The landlord’s Property Expenses Report refers to the removal of branches and tree trimming in February 2024. The hedge would have taken some time to grow to the extent shown in the photographs from April 2025. Presumably, this occurred between the work in February 2024 and the tenant’s later photographs.
It is unclear if the large branches that were cut down were removed by the owner, or to what extent. A text message dated 25 March 2025 from the landlord refers to removing off cuts to the other side of the farm. The tenant said her photographs from April 2025 showed they were not removed. However, it was not suggested that the large tree branches substantially interfered with the tenant’s enjoyment of the premises.
The various pieces of evidence are difficult to piece together. I am unable to find that the landlord failed to maintain the trees on the property, permanently left green rubbish on the premises, or that the tenant was significantly impacted by any such failure.
While acknowledging that the hedge brushing up against the house would have been disturbing, I consider it would not have been too difficult for the tenant to cut this back a little. The surrounding trees were said to contribute to mould issues, but the evidence does not clearly show this was a cause of the problem (the landlord said she was not made aware of any issue with mould).
However, I find that the landlord was in breach by not maintaining the hedges, which were allowed to grow up to and over the property. This caused some inconvenience and distress. I award compensation of $250.00. Sceptic Tank Maintenance / Hot Water Cylinder
The tenant said the toilet blocked three times and this was caused by the sceptic tank not being cleared out often enough. The tenant said it took the landlord several days to remedy the issue each time it happened.
I note that a drain unblocking company attended on or about 23 August 2024 to vacuum the sceptic tank. A “large volume of wet wipes” was observed while clearing. I am not satisfied that the toilet was blocked because the landlord did not clear out the sceptic tank, or because the tank was too small. The cause is unclear.
The tenant also said the landlord refused to urgently fix the hot water cylinder for several days, which meant they could not have showers and had to boil water. The landlord said the hot water cylinder was replaced the same day.
This situation may have caused the tenant several days of inconvenience. However, I am not satisfied that the landlord refused to urgently fix the hot water cylinder. The available text messages appear to show the landlord responding to the tenant’s concerns and arranging for a contractor to attend. Bedroom Light and Door Handles
The tenant said these issues were raised with the landlord at an inspection. They appear to have been relatively minor maintenance concerns. The landlord said they were unaware of the problem.
I am not satisfied that the landlord breached its obligations or if they did, that the failure was so significant that compensation should be awarded. Filing Fee
The tenant’s application has been partly successful. It is appropriate to award the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, in any proceedings that relate to withdrawal from a tenancy under section 56B, order that the name and any identifying particulars of the parties not be published. Outcome
These findings mean that the landlord obtained a net award of $2,198.27. Subsequently the tenant has paid $2,000.00 towards this liability. While the landlord claims rent from 16 May to 31 May 2025 in the sum of $1,135.71, this cannot be claimed against the tenant, who withdrew from the tenancy on 16 May 2025.
I do however award the final water charges, which are minimal and are for the period prior to the tenant’s departure.
The amounts awarded to the tenant mean that there has been an overpayment by the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5157952 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5157952 — 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