What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5176733 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5176733?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5176733?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Leaks, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5176733?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11641023-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5176733 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5176733?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5176733?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Leaks, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5176733?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11641023-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16 Percival Road, Paraparaumu Beach, Paraparaumu 5032 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5176733 — Mould & damp

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to repair a leak in the lounge. Under section 45, a landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

Melissa reported a leak in the lounge to the property manager by text on 28 August 2024. The landlord arranged for Jae, carpet services, to attend at the property. Their services were carried out from 5 to 9 September at which point they reported the carpet had been dried but the leak still needed to be fixed. The landlord arranged for the roof to be repaired. On 10 September the landlord informed the tenant that the rent would be reduced from $780.00 to $650.00 per week until the roof was repaired. The calculation was based on rooms affected. The tenant accepted the rent reduction. On 22 November the landlord informed the tenant that the roof was repaired and normal rent of $780.00 would resume on 29 November.

Melissa has claimed that after the roof repair there was an ongoing leak that the landlord failed to repair. However there is insufficient evidence for a finding to be made that the roof repair did not fix the leak in the lounge. The evidence Melissa would need to provide to the Tribunal to prove her claim is evidence showing she contacted the landlord about an ongoing leak after the roof was repaired. She has not provided that evidence.

The landlord stated that despite many written communications from the tenant after the roof repair, there was no communication from Melissa about water leaking into the premises. The landlord said that at the end of the tenancy inspection there was no indication that there had been further leaks into the lounge. The landlord stated that the current tenants have not reported water leaking in the lounge.

I am satisfied that the landlord adequately addressed the problem of leaking in the lounge by having contractors address the damp carpet, replacing parts of the roof and providing a rent reduction in compensation during that period. Melissa has not proved that the landlord failed to maintain the premises. The claim is therefore dismissed.

Was termination notice given by the landlord retaliatory?

On 18 September, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 20 November 2024 on the grounds that the owner of the premises required the premises. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.

Melissa’s application is made under section 54(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. It is headed; ‘Tribunal may declare notice retaliatory’. Section 54(1) states: “Within 28 working days after receipt of a notice terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U), the tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice is of no effect on the ground that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.”

Melissa received the notice on 18 September but did not apply to the Tribunal until 24 February 2025. The requirement for an application to be made within 28 days has not been met and the application must therefore be dismissed. Filing Fee

Because the tenant has not been successful with the claim the filing fee of $27.00 cannot be ordered to be paid by the landlord. Suppression

The tenant has applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that 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 tenant has not substantially succeeded with the claim and therefore name suppression is not granted.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to repair a leak in the lounge. Under section 45, a landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Melissa reported a leak in the lounge to the property manager by text on 28 August 2024. The landlord arranged for Jae, carpet services, to attend at the property. Their services were carried out from 5 to 9 September at which point they reported the carpet had been dried but the leak still needed to be fixed. The landlord arranged for the roof to be repaired. On 10 September the landlord informed the tenant that the rent would be reduced from $780.00 to $650.00 per week until the roof was repaired. The calculation was based on rooms affected. The tenant accepted the rent reduction. On 22 November the landlord informed the tenant that the roof was repaired and normal rent of $780.00 would resume on 29 November.
Melissa has claimed that after the roof repair there was an ongoing leak that the landlord failed to repair. However there is insufficient evidence for a finding to be made that the roof repair did not fix the leak in the lounge. The evidence Melissa would need to provide to the Tribunal to prove her claim is evidence showing she contacted the landlord about an ongoing leak after the roof was repaired. She has not provided that evidence.
The landlord stated that despite many written communications from the tenant after the roof repair, there was no communication from Melissa about water leaking into the premises. The landlord said that at the end of the tenancy inspection there was no indication that there had been further leaks into the lounge. The landlord stated that the current tenants have not reported water leaking in the lounge.
I am satisfied that the landlord adequately addressed the problem of leaking in the lounge by having contractors address the damp carpet, replacing parts of the roof and providing a rent reduction in compensation during that period. Melissa has not proved that the landlord failed to maintain the premises. The claim is therefore dismissed.

Was termination notice given by the landlord retaliatory?

On 18 September, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 20 November 2024 on the grounds that the owner of the premises required the premises. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
Melissa’s application is made under section 54(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. It is headed; ‘Tribunal may declare notice retaliatory’. Section 54(1) states: “Within 28 working days after receipt of a notice terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U), the tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice is of no effect on the ground that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.”
Melissa received the notice on 18 September but did not apply to the Tribunal until 24 February 2025. The requirement for an application to be made within 28 days has not been met and the application must therefore be dismissed. Filing Fee
Because the tenant has not been successful with the claim the filing fee of $27.00 cannot be ordered to be paid by the landlord. Suppression
The tenant has applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that 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 tenant has not substantially succeeded with the claim and therefore name suppression is not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5176733 — Mould & damp at 16 Percival Road, Paraparaumu Beach, Paraparaumu 5032

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5176733 — Mould & damp at 16 Percival Road, Paraparaumu Beach, Paraparaumu 5032

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property?

Was termination notice given by the landlord retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property?

Was termination notice given by the landlord retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.