What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5183292 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 5183292?

Compensation: Failure to maintain ro…: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,045.00 awarded to landlord; Backdoor Pane: $236.90 awarded to landlord; Labour To Paint Putty On Backdoor: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $282.37 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5183292?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5183292?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12425631-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5183292 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 5183292?

Compensation: Failure to maintain ro…: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,045.00 awarded to landlord; Backdoor Pane: $236.90 awarded to landlord; Labour To Paint Putty On Backdoor: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $282.37 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5183292?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5183292?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12425631-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

111 Farquhar Road, Glendene, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5183292 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

111 Farquhar Road, Glendene, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5183292 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5183292 — net $4,134.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 February 2025	$4,045.00		Rent arrears to 4 February 2025
Water rates to 4 February 2025	$282.37		Water rates to 4 February 2025
Repairs: Backdoor pane	$236.90		Repairs: Backdoor pane
Repairs: Labour to paint putty on backdoor	$20.00		Repairs: Labour to paint putty on backdoor
Compensation: Failure to maintain roof		$450.00	Failure to maintain roof
Total award	$4,584.27	$450.00
Net award	$4,134.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,134.27

Claims and awards for application 5183292 — net $4,134.27 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 4 February 2025

Amount: $4,045.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 4 February 2025

Water rates to 4 February 2025

Amount: $282.37
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates to 4 February 2025

Repairs: Backdoor pane

Amount: $236.90
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Backdoor pane

Repairs: Labour to paint putty on backdoor

Amount: $20.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Labour to paint putty on backdoor

Compensation: Failure to maintain roof

Amount: $450.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain roof

Dismissed claims

Filing Fee — Filing fee & name suppression
Lost Rent — TENANT’S CLAIMS Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? The law

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Rent arrears Property damage Water Rates Filing Fee Lost Rent

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s and Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The respondent/s] must pay [The applicant/s] $4,124.27 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 29 August 2025.
The tenancy began on 21 October 2023. There are two tenants recorded on the tenancy agreement, [the tenant] and [the tenant]. Unfortunately, [the tenant] passed away after battling cancer on 4 January 2025. Rent was paid late throughout most of 2024 however, [the tenant] always managed to get on top of the arrears. Towards the end of 2024 however, when [the tenant] illness was worsening, rent arrears started to accrue. The landlord claims rent arrears totalled $4,045.00 at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also claims they are owed $282.37 in outstanding water rates, as well as outstanding amounts for damage and cleaning.
The tenant has filed a cross-application, claiming the landlord did not maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair or comply with the healthy homes standards.
The issues I must determine are: a. Is the landlord allowed to bring their claim solely against [the tenant]? b. How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears? c. How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates? d. Is the tenant responsible for damaging the back door during the tenancy? e. Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy? f. Should the tenant pay the landlord for lost rent? g. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? h. Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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 at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS Is the landlord allowed to bring their claim solely against [the tenant]? The law
Where a tenancy agreement records multiple tenants, they are jointly and severally liable. This means that that they are each individually responsible for ensuring performance of all tenant obligations such as, paying the rent and not damaging the premises. Where the landlord claims there has been a breach of any obligation owed by the tenant under the tenancy agreement or Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), the landlord may choose to pursue one tenant individually or all of the tenants together. Analysis
The tenancy agreement records two tenants, [the tenant] and [the tenant]. [the tenant] passed away on 4 January 2025. A person does not cease to be a tenant when they pass away. This is because the term “tenant” includes “any personal representative of a deceased tenant” 1 such as the executor or administrator of the deceased’s estate.
In this case, the landlord could have filed their application against [the tenant] and the personal representative of [the tenant] estate. Instead, the landlord has chosen to file their claim solely against [the tenant]. The landlord is entitled to do this, because [the tenant] and [the tenant] are joint tenants on the tenancy agreement.

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

There is a disagreement about the way in which the tenancy ended. No written notices to end the tenancy were given by either party. Both parties accept that after [the tenant] passed away, [the tenant] advised that he would be leaving the premises as he could not afford to pay the rent. [The tenant] claims it was agreed the tenancy would end on 5 February 2025, whereas the landlord claims it was meant to end on 24 January 2025, but kept getting extended. In the end, the landlord claims it was agreed the tenancy would end on 4 February 2025.
Both parties accept that the landlord took possession of the premises in the evening on 4 February 2025 and [the tenant] left the premises on this date. Therefore, I find the tenancy ended on 4 February 2025. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2.
[the tenant] claims he was forcibly removed from the premises however, no application in respect of this issue was filed by him and therefore, I cannot consider it.
The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears are $4,045.00 up to 4 February 2025.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $4,045.00.

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates?

A tenant is responsible for all outgoings that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises and use of the facilities. 2 This includes water where the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption 3 , which Watercare does.
The landlord submitted copies of original invoices from Watercare, which prove the tenant owes $282.37 in outstanding water rates invoices.
[the tenant] claims [the tenant] handled payment of the water rates invoices and the landlord never sent him the invoices after she passed away.
The landlord submitted emails sent to [the tenant] on 15 and 29 January 2025 attaching water rates invoices. Therefore, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord sent [the tenant] copies of the water rates invoices after [the tenant] passed away.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant owes $282.37 in outstanding water rates invoices.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $282.37.

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the back door during the tenancy?

The law

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 4
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 39(3). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 39(4)(c). 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 5 Evidence and submissions of the parties
Both parties accept that a glass pane in the backdoor was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord claims the tenant replaced the glass pane themselves however, the repair was not completed professionally. The tenant disagrees and claims the repair was completed professionally.
The landlord submitted photographs of the door taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy, as well as an invoice from Pro Glass for $236.90. The landlord seeks to recover this amount, as well as $170.00 for the purchase of materials and labour. The landlord painted the door and putty themselves. Analysis
The tenant accepts the glass pane was broken by his grandson who was playing with a ball inside the premises.
The tenant is responsible for repairing the glass pane and I accept the landlord’s submission that the repair job completed by the tenant is not adequate. The photograph of the door taken at the beginning of the tenancy shows it has four glass panels, all of which are perforated. The photograph of the door taken at the end of the tenancy shows three perforated glass panes and a fourth glass pane covered in tape. The purpose of the tape is to give the appearance that the glass is perforated however, it is quite clear from the photograph that the glass is covered in tape and not actually perforated. The tape is also of a different design compared to the rest of the glass panes. The overall impression is that the repair has not been completed professionally.
The landlord claims the glass installed by the tenant is not safety glass, which it should be. The tenant accepts it is not safety glass, but claims it is nonetheless safe and not at risk of breaking, because it is thick. The tenant is not a glazier and therefore, I do not accept their evidence on this point.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the glass pane was damaged during the tenancy by the tenant’s grandson. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the repair job completed by the tenant is inadequate. It was reasonable for the landlord to have the glass pane repaired by a glazier.
The landlord did not make a claim with their insurer, as the excess would have exceeded the repair cost. 5 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $236.90 to repair the window pane is granted.
The landlord seeks a further $170.00 for painting the door and putty. The landlord claims the use of tape by the tenant when attempting to repair the glass pane peeled the paint.
The door is old and the paintjob is hardly new in the photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. Any paint removed by the use of tape by the tenant would most likely have been minimal. Given the age and condition of the door in the photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy, small amounts of missing paint would hardly have stood out. For this reason, I find it was not reasonable for the landlord to repaint the entire door.
The landlord submitted over 300 pages of evidence and did not refer me to any receipts for the purchase of items such as paint, paintbrushes or sanders during the hearing.
I find that the landlord should be compensated for their time to paint the putty, which needed to be sealed to avoid water damage, but nothing else.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for their time and labour to paint the putty is granted for $20.00, which I find to be a reasonable and fair amount.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The law

At the end of the tenancy, the tenancy must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and removal all of their goods and rubbish. 6
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 7 It does not mean commercially clean, 8 spotless 9 or to a hotel or motel standard. 10 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 11
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities.” 12 Therefore, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the premises. 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) and (iii). 7 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 8 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 9 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 10 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 11 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. 12 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. Analysis
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. There is food and rubbish present in the kitchen. Personal belongings and rubbish are also present throughout the premises, including the garage. No effort has been made to clean the premises. The floors have not been vacuumed or mopped and the surfaces have not been wiped down. On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant did not remove all goods and rubbish at the end of the tenancy and did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord has received a full refund of the bond of $2,520.00, which they have credited towards hiring skip bins, purchasing cleaning materials and 39 hours of their time and labour. The landlord seeks to recover a further $664.70 for a further 19 hours of their time and labour. This would bring the total amount of compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal to $3,184.70.
I accept the tenant left a lot of work for the landlord to do in terms of clearing rubbish, goods and cleaning the premises however, the amount already recovered of $2,520.00 is more than reasonable. The premises were not left in a good condition however, they are far from the worst case scenarios the Tribunal sees.
The landlord claims they were trying to mitigate their loss by completing the work themselves however, the landlord is seeking to recover 58 hours of labour charged out at a rate of $35.00 per hour. The landlord claims it would have cost significantly more if they hired a professional however, no evidence to support this submission was provided, such as quotes from professionals.
The Tribunal sees numerous applications for compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal. The average hourly rate is around $30.00 - $50.00 per hour. The landlord cannot claim to have completed the work themselves to minimise their loss and then seek to recover compensation from the tenant for an amount equivalent to the likely cost a professional would have charged.
Of the $2,520.00 recovered by the landlord, $1,365.30 is for their time and labour. Considering the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy, $1,365.30 is a reasonable amount to reflect the landlord’s time and labour.
The landlord’s claim for further compensation of $664.70 is dismissed.

Should the tenant pay the landlord for lost rent?

The law

Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or RTA, the other party must take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract. 13
The general law provides that if an applicant has suffered damage that is not too remote, then they must, so far as money can do, be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. Compensation cannot be recovered for all types of damage and a line must be drawn somewhere. Therefore, the law does not permit compensation for damage that is considered to be too remote. Recovery is limited to actual loss resulting from the breach that was reasonably foreseeable when the contract was made. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord seeks compensation of 3 weeks rent totalling $1,890.00. The landlord gave evidence that when a tenant complies with their obligations at the end of the tenancy, the premises can usually be tenanted within a couple of weeks. If the tenant had complied with their obligations at the end of this tenancy, the landlord claims the premises would have been able to be tenanted around 15 February 2025 however the premises were not returned to a state to be advertised until 8 March 2025. Therefore, the landlord seeks compensation for the period between 15 February 2025 – 8 March 2025.
The tenant claims they told the landlord to chuck all of their personal belongings in the rubbish. The landlord did not do this and therefore, the tenant claims they contributed to the delay. Analysis
One of the reasons it took the landlord longer than usual to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy state is because they chose to do the work themselves. The landlord works fulltime during the week and was only able to work on the premises in the weekends. The premises could have been returned to a reasonably clean and tidy state more quickly if contractors were hired. By failing to hire contractors, the landlord contributed to the delay in re-tenanting the premises.
The other reason it took the landlord longer than usual to advertise the premises for rent is because the tenant left a lot of personal belongings behind. Sections 62 – 62B RTA outlines the process for landlords to follow when dealing with goods left at the premises. The landlord appears to have struggled to understand the law in this regard. They gave evidence that they found the process very overwhelming and did not know what to do with the tenant’s 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49. belongings. The landlord could have sought advice from a private lawyer about the process to follow, which would have sped things up however, they did not. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord’s lack of knowledge also contributed to a delay in re-tenanting the premises.
The landlord stored the tenant’s goods in the garage and claims they were unable to advertise the premises for rent while the garage was full. I do not accept this submission. The garage is only a small part of the premises. The premises could reasonably have been advertised for rent with a disclaimer being provided about the garage and a temporary reduction in rent being offered until the goods were removed. By delaying advertising the premises for rent until the garage was clear of all of the goods, the landlord failed to act reasonably to mitigate their loss.
For these reasons, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant’s breach caused a delay of three weeks before the premises could be advertised for rent. I am also not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord acted reasonably to mitigate their loss.
The landlord’s claim for lost rent is dismissed. TENANT’S CLAIMS

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

The law

Under section 45(1)(b) RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
It is well settled that a landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy the problem. 14
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 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. 15 However, notice 14 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 16
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 17
The tenant claims the landlord failed to remedy the following issues within a reasonable timeframe: a. Fraying carpet b. Flooding garage c. Leaking roof
I deal with each issue individually below. Fraying carpet Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant submitted a photograph of the carpet by the door, which is fraying at the edges. The tenant claims the landlord put a mat over the carpet to cover it.
The landlord accepts they provided a mat for the tenant to cover the fraying carpet and protect it from further deterioration. Analysis
The fraying carpet as shown in the photographs is minor. The carpet is only fraying in small sections at the edge where it meets the door. The provision of a mat to cover the carpet is sufficient to remedy the problem. It is not unusual to have a mat cover carpet near an entry door. It would be unreasonable to expect the landlord to replace the entire carpet or even complete a patch repair for something so minor.
For these reasons, the tenant has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to maintain the carpet in a reasonable state of repair.
This claim is dismissed. Flooding garage Evidence and submissions of the parties 15 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 16 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 17 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
The tenant claims the garage flooded every time it rained. The tenant compared the garage to a swimming pool when it rained. The tenant claims they could not store anything in the garage, because it would get wet.
The landlord claims the hot water cylinder leaked shortly before this tenancy began and water accrued in the garage. The landlord submitted an invoice for the purchase of a new hot water cylinder dated 29 September 2023. The landlord denies rainwater entered the garage and claims any water in the garage was from the leaking hot water cylinder, which gradually dried up over time. Analysis
The tenant did not submit any photographs of the garage when it was flooded. I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities the garage was “like a swimming pool”, as claimed by the tenant. There is no evidence to support this. I am also not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant was unable to use the garage for storage. The photographs of the garage taken at the end of the tenancy show a number of the tenant’s items stored inside the garage.
The tenant referred to the landlord’s photographs of the garage taken at the beginning of the tenancy. These show what appears to be a water mark towards the back and right hand side of the garage. A pellet is also present. This suggests that water sometimes accrued in this part of the garage and the pellet was provided to elevate goods so that they did not get wet. The pellet is not very high, which suggests any water was surface level only.
The landlord claims the cause of any water inside the garage was residual water from the leaking hot water cylinder, which the tenant denies. Even if rainwater entered the garage at times, this is not an unusual occurrence for older garages in older properties like this one. The tenant has not submitted any evidence to support their claim that the problem was significant or prohibited them from using the garage for its intended purpose.
For these reasons, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to maintain the garage in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to its age and character.
This claim is dismissed. Leaking roof Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the roof the leaked and they reported this to the landlord around mid-2024 during a phone conversation. The tenant claims water dripped into the kitchen from the leak and the premises were damp, mouldy and smelt bad as a result. The tenant claims the landlord gave them a dehumidifier, but never fixed the problem. The tenant has visited the premises since the tenancy ended during an open home and claims the problem persists, with the landlord having simply painted over the ceiling/wall where the leak was.
The landlord claims they made genuine efforts to investigate and repair the leaking roof in a timely manner. Analysis
The landlord accepts the leaking roof was reported to them by the tenant around mid-April 2024. The landlord submitted an invoice from Dynamic Plumbing works dated 24 April 2024. It states: “Arrived onsite and found cracked tile under lip of roof. Roof is in bad condition and will require a roofing company to resolve issues.”
The landlord claims they then organised for Inasec Roofing to visit the premises. The landlord claims Inasec Roofing visited the premises around mid- May 2024 and submitted text messages from Inasec Roofing around this time. The text messages do not contain much detail. On 13 May 2024, the landlord contacts Inasec Roofing advising them of the problem and asking them to organise a time with the tenant to visit the premises. Inasec Roofing reply on the same day advising that they will look into the problem and get back to the landlord shortly. The next text message is from the landlord dated 20 May 2024 asking if Inasec Roofing managed to check the leaking roof. Inasec reply advising that they will call the landlord in 5 minutes. On 18 June 2024, Inasec Roofing advise they will send the landlord an invoice. On 17 July 2024, the landlord contacts Inasec Roofing again advising that the leak is still occurring. No further text messages were submitted.
The content of the text messages are vague. Insufficient detail is provided for me to gleam when Inasec Roofing visited the premises and what work they undertook to fix the problem.
The issue was first reported to the landlord on 19 April 2024 and the landlord’s last text message submitted to Inasec Roofing was sent on 17 July 2024. In this text message, the landlord advises Inasec Roofing that the roof is still leaking, which means the problem was still ongoing up to this date.
The landlord claims Inasec Roofing visited the premises again and applied silicone to the roof and tightened the roof tiles. The landlord claims this fixed the leak. Given the comments by Dynamic Plumbing Works about the nature and extent of the problem, I consider a more accurate description is that this was a temporary repair.
The landlord did not submit an invoice from Inasec Roofing confirming they applied silicone to the roof and tightened the tiles. Notwithstanding this lack of evidence, the landlord did not receive any further complaints from the tenant about the roof leaking. For this reason, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that a temporary repair was completed and this stopped the roof leaking.
The landlord sent a text message to Inasec Roofing advising them that the roof was still leaking on 17 July 2024. On the balance of probabilities, I consider the temporary repair was most likely completed some time around late July/early August 2024.
The leaking roof was reported to the landlord on 19 April 2024. The issue was investigated by them on 24 April 2024 however, the problem was not fixed until late July/early August 2024. That is a period of approximately 15 weeks. A leaking roof is a serious concern to the overall structure and integrity of the premises. It is also inconvenient to have to deal with a leaking ceiling every time it rains. I accept the tenant’s evidence that the leaking roof contributed to dampness and made the premises smell.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord failed to maintain the roof in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $30.00 per week to be reasonable. In settling on this figure, I have had regard to the fact that the issue mainly presented itself when it was raining, which was not all of the time. It was also confined to one area of the kitchen. I have also had regard to the fact that the landlord took steps to address the problem and did not ignore it entirely.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $450.00.

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

The law

Section 45(1)(bb) RTA requires a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards.
The healthy homes standards are found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. These regulations provide minimum standards for insulation, heating, ventilation, draughts, moisture and drainage. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the premises did not comply with the healthy homes standards. The tenant claims the premises were damp and mouldy. The tenant claims the landlord provided them with a dehumidifier at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord claims the premises complied with the healthy homes standards, as there were extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen, heating in the main living area and insulation in the ceiling and underfloor. Analysis
The tenancy began on 21 October 2023. The landlord had 120 days to ensure the premises complied with the healthy homes standards. The tenancy agreement records the landlord’s intention to ensure the premises comply within this timeframe.
There is an insulation statement attached to the tenancy agreement, which confirms the premises have underfloor and ceiling insulation. The photographs of the premises submitted by the landlord show an extractor fan is present in the kitchen. These are indicators that the premises comply with the healthy homes standards.
The tenant bares the onus of proving the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards on the balance of probabilities. No photographs of mould or moisture, which might suggest non-compliance, were submitted by the tenant. No healthy homes inspection report was submitted either.
In the absence of any supporting evidence, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards.
This claim is dismissed. Filing fee & name suppression
Both parties have been substantially successful with their claim and therefore, I do not order either party to reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I order suppression of both parties’ names.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5183292 — net $4,134.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 February 2025	$4,045.00		Rent arrears to 4 February 2025
Water rates to 4 February 2025	$282.37		Water rates to 4 February 2025
Repairs: Backdoor pane	$236.90		Repairs: Backdoor pane
Repairs: Labour to paint putty on backdoor	$20.00		Repairs: Labour to paint putty on backdoor
Compensation: Failure to maintain roof		$450.00	Failure to maintain roof
Total award	$4,584.27	$450.00
Net award	$4,134.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,134.27

Claims and awards for application 5183292 — net $4,134.27 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 4 February 2025

Amount: $4,045.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 4 February 2025

Water rates to 4 February 2025

Amount: $282.37
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates to 4 February 2025

Repairs: Backdoor pane

Amount: $236.90
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Backdoor pane

Repairs: Labour to paint putty on backdoor

Amount: $20.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Labour to paint putty on backdoor

Compensation: Failure to maintain roof

Amount: $450.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain roof

Dismissed claims

Filing Fee — Filing fee & name suppression
Lost Rent — TENANT’S CLAIMS Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? The law

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Rent arrears Property damage Water Rates Filing Fee Lost Rent

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s and Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The respondent/s] must pay [The applicant/s] $4,124.27 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 29 August 2025.
The tenancy began on 21 October 2023. There are two tenants recorded on the tenancy agreement, [the tenant] and [the tenant]. Unfortunately, [the tenant] passed away after battling cancer on 4 January 2025. Rent was paid late throughout most of 2024 however, [the tenant] always managed to get on top of the arrears. Towards the end of 2024 however, when [the tenant] illness was worsening, rent arrears started to accrue. The landlord claims rent arrears totalled $4,045.00 at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also claims they are owed $282.37 in outstanding water rates, as well as outstanding amounts for damage and cleaning.
The tenant has filed a cross-application, claiming the landlord did not maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair or comply with the healthy homes standards.
The issues I must determine are: a. Is the landlord allowed to bring their claim solely against [the tenant]? b. How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears? c. How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates? d. Is the tenant responsible for damaging the back door during the tenancy? e. Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy? f. Should the tenant pay the landlord for lost rent? g. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? h. Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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 at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS Is the landlord allowed to bring their claim solely against [the tenant]? The law
Where a tenancy agreement records multiple tenants, they are jointly and severally liable. This means that that they are each individually responsible for ensuring performance of all tenant obligations such as, paying the rent and not damaging the premises. Where the landlord claims there has been a breach of any obligation owed by the tenant under the tenancy agreement or Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), the landlord may choose to pursue one tenant individually or all of the tenants together. Analysis
The tenancy agreement records two tenants, [the tenant] and [the tenant]. [the tenant] passed away on 4 January 2025. A person does not cease to be a tenant when they pass away. This is because the term “tenant” includes “any personal representative of a deceased tenant” 1 such as the executor or administrator of the deceased’s estate.
In this case, the landlord could have filed their application against [the tenant] and the personal representative of [the tenant] estate. Instead, the landlord has chosen to file their claim solely against [the tenant]. The landlord is entitled to do this, because [the tenant] and [the tenant] are joint tenants on the tenancy agreement.

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

There is a disagreement about the way in which the tenancy ended. No written notices to end the tenancy were given by either party. Both parties accept that after [the tenant] passed away, [the tenant] advised that he would be leaving the premises as he could not afford to pay the rent. [The tenant] claims it was agreed the tenancy would end on 5 February 2025, whereas the landlord claims it was meant to end on 24 January 2025, but kept getting extended. In the end, the landlord claims it was agreed the tenancy would end on 4 February 2025.
Both parties accept that the landlord took possession of the premises in the evening on 4 February 2025 and [the tenant] left the premises on this date. Therefore, I find the tenancy ended on 4 February 2025. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2.
[the tenant] claims he was forcibly removed from the premises however, no application in respect of this issue was filed by him and therefore, I cannot consider it.
The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears are $4,045.00 up to 4 February 2025.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $4,045.00.

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates?

A tenant is responsible for all outgoings that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises and use of the facilities. 2 This includes water where the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption 3 , which Watercare does.
The landlord submitted copies of original invoices from Watercare, which prove the tenant owes $282.37 in outstanding water rates invoices.
[the tenant] claims [the tenant] handled payment of the water rates invoices and the landlord never sent him the invoices after she passed away.
The landlord submitted emails sent to [the tenant] on 15 and 29 January 2025 attaching water rates invoices. Therefore, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord sent [the tenant] copies of the water rates invoices after [the tenant] passed away.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant owes $282.37 in outstanding water rates invoices.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $282.37.

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the back door during the tenancy?

The law

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 4
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 39(3). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 39(4)(c). 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 5 Evidence and submissions of the parties
Both parties accept that a glass pane in the backdoor was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord claims the tenant replaced the glass pane themselves however, the repair was not completed professionally. The tenant disagrees and claims the repair was completed professionally.
The landlord submitted photographs of the door taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy, as well as an invoice from Pro Glass for $236.90. The landlord seeks to recover this amount, as well as $170.00 for the purchase of materials and labour. The landlord painted the door and putty themselves. Analysis
The tenant accepts the glass pane was broken by his grandson who was playing with a ball inside the premises.
The tenant is responsible for repairing the glass pane and I accept the landlord’s submission that the repair job completed by the tenant is not adequate. The photograph of the door taken at the beginning of the tenancy shows it has four glass panels, all of which are perforated. The photograph of the door taken at the end of the tenancy shows three perforated glass panes and a fourth glass pane covered in tape. The purpose of the tape is to give the appearance that the glass is perforated however, it is quite clear from the photograph that the glass is covered in tape and not actually perforated. The tape is also of a different design compared to the rest of the glass panes. The overall impression is that the repair has not been completed professionally.
The landlord claims the glass installed by the tenant is not safety glass, which it should be. The tenant accepts it is not safety glass, but claims it is nonetheless safe and not at risk of breaking, because it is thick. The tenant is not a glazier and therefore, I do not accept their evidence on this point.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the glass pane was damaged during the tenancy by the tenant’s grandson. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the repair job completed by the tenant is inadequate. It was reasonable for the landlord to have the glass pane repaired by a glazier.
The landlord did not make a claim with their insurer, as the excess would have exceeded the repair cost. 5 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $236.90 to repair the window pane is granted.
The landlord seeks a further $170.00 for painting the door and putty. The landlord claims the use of tape by the tenant when attempting to repair the glass pane peeled the paint.
The door is old and the paintjob is hardly new in the photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. Any paint removed by the use of tape by the tenant would most likely have been minimal. Given the age and condition of the door in the photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy, small amounts of missing paint would hardly have stood out. For this reason, I find it was not reasonable for the landlord to repaint the entire door.
The landlord submitted over 300 pages of evidence and did not refer me to any receipts for the purchase of items such as paint, paintbrushes or sanders during the hearing.
I find that the landlord should be compensated for their time to paint the putty, which needed to be sealed to avoid water damage, but nothing else.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for their time and labour to paint the putty is granted for $20.00, which I find to be a reasonable and fair amount.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The law

At the end of the tenancy, the tenancy must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and removal all of their goods and rubbish. 6
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 7 It does not mean commercially clean, 8 spotless 9 or to a hotel or motel standard. 10 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 11
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities.” 12 Therefore, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the premises. 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) and (iii). 7 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 8 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 9 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 10 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 11 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. 12 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. Analysis
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. There is food and rubbish present in the kitchen. Personal belongings and rubbish are also present throughout the premises, including the garage. No effort has been made to clean the premises. The floors have not been vacuumed or mopped and the surfaces have not been wiped down. On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant did not remove all goods and rubbish at the end of the tenancy and did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord has received a full refund of the bond of $2,520.00, which they have credited towards hiring skip bins, purchasing cleaning materials and 39 hours of their time and labour. The landlord seeks to recover a further $664.70 for a further 19 hours of their time and labour. This would bring the total amount of compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal to $3,184.70.
I accept the tenant left a lot of work for the landlord to do in terms of clearing rubbish, goods and cleaning the premises however, the amount already recovered of $2,520.00 is more than reasonable. The premises were not left in a good condition however, they are far from the worst case scenarios the Tribunal sees.
The landlord claims they were trying to mitigate their loss by completing the work themselves however, the landlord is seeking to recover 58 hours of labour charged out at a rate of $35.00 per hour. The landlord claims it would have cost significantly more if they hired a professional however, no evidence to support this submission was provided, such as quotes from professionals.
The Tribunal sees numerous applications for compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal. The average hourly rate is around $30.00 - $50.00 per hour. The landlord cannot claim to have completed the work themselves to minimise their loss and then seek to recover compensation from the tenant for an amount equivalent to the likely cost a professional would have charged.
Of the $2,520.00 recovered by the landlord, $1,365.30 is for their time and labour. Considering the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy, $1,365.30 is a reasonable amount to reflect the landlord’s time and labour.
The landlord’s claim for further compensation of $664.70 is dismissed.

Should the tenant pay the landlord for lost rent?

The law

Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or RTA, the other party must take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract. 13
The general law provides that if an applicant has suffered damage that is not too remote, then they must, so far as money can do, be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. Compensation cannot be recovered for all types of damage and a line must be drawn somewhere. Therefore, the law does not permit compensation for damage that is considered to be too remote. Recovery is limited to actual loss resulting from the breach that was reasonably foreseeable when the contract was made. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord seeks compensation of 3 weeks rent totalling $1,890.00. The landlord gave evidence that when a tenant complies with their obligations at the end of the tenancy, the premises can usually be tenanted within a couple of weeks. If the tenant had complied with their obligations at the end of this tenancy, the landlord claims the premises would have been able to be tenanted around 15 February 2025 however the premises were not returned to a state to be advertised until 8 March 2025. Therefore, the landlord seeks compensation for the period between 15 February 2025 – 8 March 2025.
The tenant claims they told the landlord to chuck all of their personal belongings in the rubbish. The landlord did not do this and therefore, the tenant claims they contributed to the delay. Analysis
One of the reasons it took the landlord longer than usual to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy state is because they chose to do the work themselves. The landlord works fulltime during the week and was only able to work on the premises in the weekends. The premises could have been returned to a reasonably clean and tidy state more quickly if contractors were hired. By failing to hire contractors, the landlord contributed to the delay in re-tenanting the premises.
The other reason it took the landlord longer than usual to advertise the premises for rent is because the tenant left a lot of personal belongings behind. Sections 62 – 62B RTA outlines the process for landlords to follow when dealing with goods left at the premises. The landlord appears to have struggled to understand the law in this regard. They gave evidence that they found the process very overwhelming and did not know what to do with the tenant’s 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49. belongings. The landlord could have sought advice from a private lawyer about the process to follow, which would have sped things up however, they did not. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord’s lack of knowledge also contributed to a delay in re-tenanting the premises.
The landlord stored the tenant’s goods in the garage and claims they were unable to advertise the premises for rent while the garage was full. I do not accept this submission. The garage is only a small part of the premises. The premises could reasonably have been advertised for rent with a disclaimer being provided about the garage and a temporary reduction in rent being offered until the goods were removed. By delaying advertising the premises for rent until the garage was clear of all of the goods, the landlord failed to act reasonably to mitigate their loss.
For these reasons, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant’s breach caused a delay of three weeks before the premises could be advertised for rent. I am also not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord acted reasonably to mitigate their loss.
The landlord’s claim for lost rent is dismissed. TENANT’S CLAIMS

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

The law

Under section 45(1)(b) RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
It is well settled that a landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy the problem. 14
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 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. 15 However, notice 14 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 16
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 17
The tenant claims the landlord failed to remedy the following issues within a reasonable timeframe: a. Fraying carpet b. Flooding garage c. Leaking roof
I deal with each issue individually below. Fraying carpet Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant submitted a photograph of the carpet by the door, which is fraying at the edges. The tenant claims the landlord put a mat over the carpet to cover it.
The landlord accepts they provided a mat for the tenant to cover the fraying carpet and protect it from further deterioration. Analysis
The fraying carpet as shown in the photographs is minor. The carpet is only fraying in small sections at the edge where it meets the door. The provision of a mat to cover the carpet is sufficient to remedy the problem. It is not unusual to have a mat cover carpet near an entry door. It would be unreasonable to expect the landlord to replace the entire carpet or even complete a patch repair for something so minor.
For these reasons, the tenant has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to maintain the carpet in a reasonable state of repair.
This claim is dismissed. Flooding garage Evidence and submissions of the parties 15 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 16 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 17 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
The tenant claims the garage flooded every time it rained. The tenant compared the garage to a swimming pool when it rained. The tenant claims they could not store anything in the garage, because it would get wet.
The landlord claims the hot water cylinder leaked shortly before this tenancy began and water accrued in the garage. The landlord submitted an invoice for the purchase of a new hot water cylinder dated 29 September 2023. The landlord denies rainwater entered the garage and claims any water in the garage was from the leaking hot water cylinder, which gradually dried up over time. Analysis
The tenant did not submit any photographs of the garage when it was flooded. I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities the garage was “like a swimming pool”, as claimed by the tenant. There is no evidence to support this. I am also not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant was unable to use the garage for storage. The photographs of the garage taken at the end of the tenancy show a number of the tenant’s items stored inside the garage.
The tenant referred to the landlord’s photographs of the garage taken at the beginning of the tenancy. These show what appears to be a water mark towards the back and right hand side of the garage. A pellet is also present. This suggests that water sometimes accrued in this part of the garage and the pellet was provided to elevate goods so that they did not get wet. The pellet is not very high, which suggests any water was surface level only.
The landlord claims the cause of any water inside the garage was residual water from the leaking hot water cylinder, which the tenant denies. Even if rainwater entered the garage at times, this is not an unusual occurrence for older garages in older properties like this one. The tenant has not submitted any evidence to support their claim that the problem was significant or prohibited them from using the garage for its intended purpose.
For these reasons, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to maintain the garage in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to its age and character.
This claim is dismissed. Leaking roof Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the roof the leaked and they reported this to the landlord around mid-2024 during a phone conversation. The tenant claims water dripped into the kitchen from the leak and the premises were damp, mouldy and smelt bad as a result. The tenant claims the landlord gave them a dehumidifier, but never fixed the problem. The tenant has visited the premises since the tenancy ended during an open home and claims the problem persists, with the landlord having simply painted over the ceiling/wall where the leak was.
The landlord claims they made genuine efforts to investigate and repair the leaking roof in a timely manner. Analysis
The landlord accepts the leaking roof was reported to them by the tenant around mid-April 2024. The landlord submitted an invoice from Dynamic Plumbing works dated 24 April 2024. It states: “Arrived onsite and found cracked tile under lip of roof. Roof is in bad condition and will require a roofing company to resolve issues.”
The landlord claims they then organised for Inasec Roofing to visit the premises. The landlord claims Inasec Roofing visited the premises around mid- May 2024 and submitted text messages from Inasec Roofing around this time. The text messages do not contain much detail. On 13 May 2024, the landlord contacts Inasec Roofing advising them of the problem and asking them to organise a time with the tenant to visit the premises. Inasec Roofing reply on the same day advising that they will look into the problem and get back to the landlord shortly. The next text message is from the landlord dated 20 May 2024 asking if Inasec Roofing managed to check the leaking roof. Inasec reply advising that they will call the landlord in 5 minutes. On 18 June 2024, Inasec Roofing advise they will send the landlord an invoice. On 17 July 2024, the landlord contacts Inasec Roofing again advising that the leak is still occurring. No further text messages were submitted.
The content of the text messages are vague. Insufficient detail is provided for me to gleam when Inasec Roofing visited the premises and what work they undertook to fix the problem.
The issue was first reported to the landlord on 19 April 2024 and the landlord’s last text message submitted to Inasec Roofing was sent on 17 July 2024. In this text message, the landlord advises Inasec Roofing that the roof is still leaking, which means the problem was still ongoing up to this date.
The landlord claims Inasec Roofing visited the premises again and applied silicone to the roof and tightened the roof tiles. The landlord claims this fixed the leak. Given the comments by Dynamic Plumbing Works about the nature and extent of the problem, I consider a more accurate description is that this was a temporary repair.
The landlord did not submit an invoice from Inasec Roofing confirming they applied silicone to the roof and tightened the tiles. Notwithstanding this lack of evidence, the landlord did not receive any further complaints from the tenant about the roof leaking. For this reason, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that a temporary repair was completed and this stopped the roof leaking.
The landlord sent a text message to Inasec Roofing advising them that the roof was still leaking on 17 July 2024. On the balance of probabilities, I consider the temporary repair was most likely completed some time around late July/early August 2024.
The leaking roof was reported to the landlord on 19 April 2024. The issue was investigated by them on 24 April 2024 however, the problem was not fixed until late July/early August 2024. That is a period of approximately 15 weeks. A leaking roof is a serious concern to the overall structure and integrity of the premises. It is also inconvenient to have to deal with a leaking ceiling every time it rains. I accept the tenant’s evidence that the leaking roof contributed to dampness and made the premises smell.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord failed to maintain the roof in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I find $30.00 per week to be reasonable. In settling on this figure, I have had regard to the fact that the issue mainly presented itself when it was raining, which was not all of the time. It was also confined to one area of the kitchen. I have also had regard to the fact that the landlord took steps to address the problem and did not ignore it entirely.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $450.00.

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

The law

Section 45(1)(bb) RTA requires a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards.
The healthy homes standards are found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. These regulations provide minimum standards for insulation, heating, ventilation, draughts, moisture and drainage. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the premises did not comply with the healthy homes standards. The tenant claims the premises were damp and mouldy. The tenant claims the landlord provided them with a dehumidifier at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord claims the premises complied with the healthy homes standards, as there were extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen, heating in the main living area and insulation in the ceiling and underfloor. Analysis
The tenancy began on 21 October 2023. The landlord had 120 days to ensure the premises complied with the healthy homes standards. The tenancy agreement records the landlord’s intention to ensure the premises comply within this timeframe.
There is an insulation statement attached to the tenancy agreement, which confirms the premises have underfloor and ceiling insulation. The photographs of the premises submitted by the landlord show an extractor fan is present in the kitchen. These are indicators that the premises comply with the healthy homes standards.
The tenant bares the onus of proving the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards on the balance of probabilities. No photographs of mould or moisture, which might suggest non-compliance, were submitted by the tenant. No healthy homes inspection report was submitted either.
In the absence of any supporting evidence, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards.
This claim is dismissed. Filing fee & name suppression
Both parties have been substantially successful with their claim and therefore, I do not order either party to reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I order suppression of both parties’ names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5183292 — Rent arrears at 111 Farquhar Road, Glendene, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5183292 — Rent arrears at 111 Farquhar Road, Glendene, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the back door during the tenancy?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Should the tenant pay the landlord for lost rent?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the back door during the tenancy?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Should the tenant pay the landlord for lost rent?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions