What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5186914 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 5186914?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5186914?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5186914?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12833338-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5186914 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 5186914?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5186914?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5186914?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12833338-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5186914 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The landlord claim for damage repairs is dismissed.
The tenant claim for water refund and failure to maintain is dismissed.
The tenant claim for bond refund is successful.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,620.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place on 17 November 2025.
The tenants rented a home from the landlord through their agent. The tenancy commenced in January 2022. The tenants lived in the premises with their two children. In January 2025 extensive damage to the premises in the kitchen and hallway area was discovered to have been caused by a leak. The tenancy ended in May 2025 following notice being given by the tenants.
The parties attended a case conference by telephone on 17 September 2025.
The Adjudicator made directions for the filing of evidence and recorded the claims as follows: i. Landlord claims The landlord lodged an application on 4 March 2025 with the following claims: a.Breach of tenant obligations - vacated damage compensation in respect of renovation and repairs to kitchen due to flooding - $15,057.57. b.Further damage compensation in respect of kitchen renovation and repairs $12,267.32 (less the amount $721.73 giving a revised total of $26,
26). ii.Tenant claims The tenants’ lodged an application on 18 March 2025 with the following claims: a.Failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair – s45(1)(b) RTA b.Request for partial rent refund c.Reimbursement of water charges paid Standard of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated:“...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all of the evidence in this decision, however, the parties can be assured that I have carefully considered all of the evidence filed. Landlord claim

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

The general principle regarding responsibility for damage is set out in section 49A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). This states that except as provided in section 49B a tenant has no liability for and must not be required to meet the cost of making good any destruction or damage to the property.
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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: It is agreed by all parties that there was water damage to the kitchen and hallway that required extensive repairs and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear.

Did the tenants carelessly or intentionally cause the damage?

The landlord claims that the tenants carelessly or intentionally caused the damage by omitting to alert the landlord to high water bills during the year of 2024 which may have led to the landlord investigating the situation earlier and discovering a leak. The landlord claimed that the tenant breached the terms of the tenancy agreement by failing to notify of damage.
The landlord stated that in December 2024 he queried with his property manager why the maintenance charges were high when there had been very little maintenance at the premises. The reply was that the water bills were high and a percentage of this is charged to the landlord. The landlord stated that the previous water leak had been repaired in March 2024 under the kitchen bench so he requested that the property manager investigate.
The property manager stated that she queried the high water bills with [The tenant/s] and she replied they are “always high”.
The landlord arranged for the plumber to attend the premises. The plumber attended on 16 December 2024 and reported the following:
The plumber replaced the hot water cylinder which was found to be leaking.
In January 2025 the tenants reported water damage at the premises via the property manager’s Console system. The exact date of this report is unclear but parties accepted it was about mid January 2025 when the tenants returned from holiday.
On 22 January 2025 the property manager found the message on Console and contacted the tenant and also a plumber. The plumber attended and reported that the previous leak had caused serious damage to the floor in the kitchen and hallway to the extent that someone might go through the floor. An immediate temporary measure was put in place and plywood installed on top of the floor to prevent anyone going through the floor to enable the tenants to remain in the premises.
The landlord then began the process of contacting the insurance company regarding repairs. The insurance company accepted the claim but concluded that the damage was gradual damage and therefore limited their payment to $3000.00 less the insurance excess of $400.00.
The tenants gave notice and the tenancy ended on 29 May 2025. The landlord completed the repairs after the tenancy ended.
The landlord claimed that the tenants were responsible for the damage as they should have noticed and reported the high water bills during 2024 and reported this to the landlord so that they could investigate earlier and/or they should have noticed the soft floor and reported this to the landlord.
The tenants denied responsibility for the damage and responded as follows. The tenants stated that there had been ongoing problems with leaks and water bills at the premises. They stated that they notified the landlord when they became aware of damage.
The tenants stated that in 2022 they reported high water bills and a leak was detected and they were given a water rebate. They stated that again in 2023 they reported high water bills and a plumber was sent to repair a cracked exterior pipe and they received a rebate. On each occasion the tenants stated that the process of getting a rebate was long and involved many emails with their property manager. The tenants stated that in 2024 they did not notice or report high water readings as this was a very difficult year personally with family circumstances and as the Watercare bills were not always sent to them regularly they just accepted and paid the bills. The tenants stated that they did leave a note for the property manager for an inspection on 20 February 2024 that there was a leak in the kitchen. This is the leak the landlord stated was repaired in March 2024.
The tenants stated that the property manager did not always provide them with copies of the Watercare invoices. They provided copies of two 14-day notices requesting invoices. The notice dated 2 March 2025 records the following invoices as not being received March 2024, January 2024, December 2023, November 2023, October 2023, August 2023, July 2023, June 2023, January 2023, September 2022.
In September 2024 the tenants reported that there was moisture leaking from the oven. The property manager did not call a contractor as she concluded it was a result of usage.
The tenant advised that in November 2024 the property manager recorded at an inspection “kickboard is getting bit of water” but this was not investigated until mid December 2024.
The tenants pointed out that in the invoice from Tibbits plumbing dated 16 December 2024 the plumber recorded “Found water meter ticking over Found hot water overflow running into gully Tested temperature and found water temperature sitting around 85 degrees Drain hot water through kitchen and replace faulty thermostat Checked electrical working fine Found leak underneath bathroom Also found kitchen flooring uneven Cold water feed behind kitchen cabinet leaking Remove everything from kitchen cabinet and drill through for new pipes through cabinet to connect hot and cold Leak has been fixed but pressure for property sitting around 750KPA”
The following day the plumber replaced the hot water cylinder and repaired rotten wood in the hot water cupboard. [The tenant/s] stated that she was present when the cylinder was removed and there was a hole in the underneath of the cylinder. The tenants stated that they also found the kitchen flooring to be uneven but did not know this was a leak problem and although the plumber recorded it no further action was taken.
The tenants stated that they went on holiday on 24 December 2024 and when they returned in mid January they noticed that the floor at the front door was soft, they also noticed that the water damage previously on the kickboards in the kitchen was much worse, they also pulled a shoe rack away from the wall in the hallway and discovered the wall had swollen.
The tenants took photographs and notified the landlord through Console.
I have carefully considered the evidence and find that the landlord has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the damage was caused intentionally or by a careless act of omission of the tenants for the following reasons: (a)Although there were high water bills in 2024 there had been high water bills throughout this tenancy. As the tenants were not always provided with copies of the Watercare invoices they were not able to see the comparative amount of usage or whether an invoice was an estimate or actual reading. (b)The tenant had reported a leak in February 2024 and this was reported as being repaired by the landlord. (c)The tenant reported a water issue with the oven in September 2024 and this was not investigated. (d)An issue with moisture damage to the kitchen kickboards was identified in November 2024 and deemed to be normal by the property manager and not investigated. (e)When the landlord requested investigation in December 2024 and a leak in the hot water cylinder was found, it was underneath the cylinder and not visible. (f)All parties believed the matter was resolved when the hot water cylinder was repaired in December 2024. (g)The tenants immediately reported the obvious floor damage upon their return from holiday in January 2025. (h)I accept the tenants’ evidence that they did not observe major leak damage prior to January 2025. This is supported by the evidence that both the plumber in December and the property manager in November 2024 had inspected the premises and did not recommend action for any major leak damage.
Therefore, the landlord’s claim for damage repairs is dismissed. Tenant claim

Is the tenant entitled to a water rates refund?

The tenants seek a partial water rates refund on the basis that there were leaks at the premises and that not all Watercare invoices were provided to the tenants. The landlord provided regular invoices to the tenants but on some occasions the original Watercare invoice was not provided. The tenants sent the landlords a 14-day notice seeking copies of the invoices. The landlord has now provided copies of the invoices. Water rebates were credited to the tenants in 2022 and 2023.
In 2024 the tenants did not report any concerns regarding high water charges and explained this was due to very difficult personal circumstances that year. This means there was no investigation of the water charges by Watercare in 2024. There is no clear evidence regarding when the leak, that was discovered at the end of 2024, started. It was repaired as soon as it was discovered in December 2024. As the tenant has had two water rates rebates and did not report high water usage in 2024 I am not satisfied that they have proved on the balance of probabilities that a further refund is due. Has the landlord breached their obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to maintain as follows: (a) Water – (i)The tenants claim that there were ongoing water leak issues at the premises and the landlord failed to address these. In particular the tenants stated that after the leak damage was discovered in January 2025 there was ongoing inconvenience to them as there was temporary flooring installed on top of the damaged flooring which was a trip hazard. (ii)The landlords responded that issues were addressed as notified and provided evidence of this. They stated that as soon as they became aware of the serious leak damage in January 2025, they acted quickly to ensure the premises were safe and arranged for temporary flooring to be installed to ensure that the risk of falling through the floor was averted. (iii)Having considered the evidence I find that the tenants have not proved on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in respect of the leak issue. It is clear from the evidence of both parties that neither was aware of the serious leak damage until January 2025. The landlord acted promptly in January 2025 to ensure the premises were made safe and then sought to make arrangements to remedy the issue. There was a large amount of work required to remedy the damage and the premises needed to be vacated for the work to be done. The landlord was in communication with the insurance company and contractors. The landlord advised that they did not wish to put the tenants in a situation where they were under pressure to move out so sought to avert the immediate urgency by arranging for temporary flooring to be installed. (iv)The tenants found alternative accommodation and gave notice and the tenancy ended in May 2025 and the repair work was then done. (b) HRV – (i)The tenants claim that the landlord failed to maintain the HRV system. On 31 January 2025 the tenants notified the landlord that there was a light flashing. They stated that the filter needed replacing but it was not replaced. (ii)The landlord responded that when they were notified by the tenant of the flashing light a work order was sent to HRV asking them to replace the filter. They stated that the email was received by the contactor and as they have been reliable in the past they assumed the work was done. The landlord stated that they did not hear further from the tenant and did not know the filter had not been replaced until after the tenancy ended and stated that the HRV was still operational without the new filter. (iii)Having considered the evidence I am not satisfied that the tenants have proved on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to maintain the HRV as they issued a work order as soon as they became aware of the flashing light and were not aware that the work had not been done. (c) Lemon Tree – the tenants stated that the lemon tree blew over in a storm and they had to secure it with ropes. They notified the landlord but no further action was taken. The landlord responded that when they investigated the tenant had already remedied the issue and has done such a good job that the lemon tree is thriving. I find that the damage to the tree was as a result of a storm not a failure to maintain and that as the tenants chose to resolve the matter themselves there has been no failure by the landlord to remedy.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord lodged the bond when this tenancy commenced.
On 4 July 2024 the tenants paid an extra $60.00 towards the bond due to a rent increase.
The landlord failed to lodge the extra bond.
The property manager stated that there was a system error as due to the small amount it was not recognised as bond and was applied to other tenant expenses.
The landlord failed to lodge the extra bond amount. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Having considered the evidence I find that the failure to lodge this small amount of extra bond was due to a system error and not intentional and therefore no exemplary damages will be ordered. Filing fee/Suppression
As both parties have successfully defended the other’s claim, I make no order regarding the reimbursement of either filing fee.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenants have applied for suppression. The landlord has not. The tenant has been successful in seeking refund of the bond. Having considered the factors in this case I find that the interests of the parties outweigh any interest in their names being published and the Tribunal orders suppression of all party details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5186914 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5186914 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenants carelessly or intentionally cause the damage?

Is the tenant entitled to a water rates refund?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenants carelessly or intentionally cause the damage?

Is the tenant entitled to a water rates refund?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions