What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5192611 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 5192611?

Compensation: failure to maintain ba…: $1,020.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5192611?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5192611?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12121723-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5192611 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 5192611?

Compensation: failure to maintain ba…: $1,020.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5192611?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5192611?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12121723-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3 Dreadon Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5192611 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5192611 — net $1,047.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: failure to maintain bathroom	$1,020.00	failure to maintain bathroom
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,047.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,047.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5192611 — net $1,047.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: failure to maintain bathroom	$1,020.00	failure to maintain bathroom
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,047.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,047.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Worx Property Management Limited As Agent For Anshumali Kalia must pay [The applicant/s] $1,047.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Riyadh Khan is the property manager for this tenancy and attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
Elisapeta Liku Fatai attended the hearing on behalf of the tenant.
The hearing took place over two days on 28 March 2025 and 30 June 2025.
The tenant claims the landlord has breached their obligations under sections 45(1)(b) and 45(1)(bb) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant seeks compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.
As the applicant, the tenant 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. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN (Section 45(1)(b) RTA) The law
Section 45(1)(b) RTA states: (1) The landlord shall – ... (a) 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. 1
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. 2 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 3
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 4 Tenant’s evidence and submissions given at first hearing on 28 March 2025
The tenant claims the landlord took too long to investigate and repair an issue involving mould in the bathroom.
The tenant gave evidence that in 2024 their children were frequently sick. The tenant claims the children’s doctor queried whether there was mould in the premises, which prompted the tenant to investigate.
The tenant claims the bath in the bathroom was black and despite the tenant’s efforts to clean it, nothing worked. This led the tenant to believe it might be mould. On12 December 2024, the tenant sent the landlord an email raising the issue.
The tenant claims they did not receive a response and therefore sent a follow up email on 24 January 2025.
The tenant claims two different tradespeople visited the premises on 26 and 29 January 2025 to investigate however, by early February 2025, no progress had been made.
On 10 February 2025, the tenant sent the landlord a 14-day notice to remedy.
The tenant claims a tradesperson visited the premises on 20 February 2025 to begin repairs. The repairs were extensive and involved removing the bath, sink and wall that the bath was placed up against.
The tenant submitted a photograph taken during the repairs. It shows the inside of the wall in the bathroom that was removed. There is extensive mould on the timber framing and back of the adjoining wall for the laundry. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 3 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 4 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
The tenant gave evidence that the tradesperson advised them that to properly fix the problem, the timber framing and the laundry wall needed to be replaced. The tenant claims the tradesperson told them that the landlord had instructed them to only replace part of the timber framing and not worry about replacing the wall in the laundry. The tenant claims that on 3 March 2025, the tradesperson boarded up the wall in the bathroom without properly fixing the problem.
At this point, I adjourned the hearing and required the landlord to investigate whether the issue had been properly fixed or not. Tenant’s evidence and submissions given at the second hearing on 30 June 2025
The tenant gave evidence that a tradesperson visited the premises on 1 April 2025 and removed the wall in the laundry. The tenant took photographs, which show the inside of the laundry wall and timber framing is covered in mould.
The tenant claims the laundry wall was replaced and mouldy timber framing treated, and the work was completed on 10 April 2025.
Throughout the whole process, the tenant claims they were unable to use the bathroom between 24 February 2025 – 6 March 2025 (10 days) and were without hot water in the entire premises from 20 February 2025 – 4 March 2025 (14 days).
The tenant gave evidence that this was a significant inconvenience, as they had to use a family member’s bathroom in Mangere to wash themselves and their children. They also had to purchase bottled water to brush their teeth and wash their face in the back garden.
The tenant submitted emails sent to the landlord requesting compensation in the form of reduced rent for the inconvenience, but claims they never received a reply. Landlord’s evidence and submissions given at first hearing on 28 March 2025
Mr Khan gave evidence that he received the tenant’s first email sent on 12 December 2024 on his last day of work for the year before taking leave over the Christmas and New Year period. Mr Khan gave evidence he returned to work on 13 January 2025 and immediately went about organising a tradesperson to visit the premises to investigate the problem.
Mr Khan claims a plumber and handyman visited the premises on 24 January 2025. On this date, there was a miscommunication between them and the tenant about a leak in the hot water cylinder. A follow up visit was completed on 25 January 2025 to investigate the hot water cylinder however, there was no problem with the hot water cylinder.
Mr Khan claims that repairs began in the first week of February 2025, not on 20 February 2025 as claimed by the tenant.
Mr Khan gave evidence that he never personally advised the tradesperson not to replace the timber framing or laundry wall. Mr Khan gave evidence that he believed the job had been completed properly.
Mr Khan did not submit an invoice for the work and claimed the tradesperson would only send an invoice at the end of the financial year.
The Tribunal managed to contact the tradesperson used by the landlord but was unable to communicate with them due to a language barrier.
The hearing was adjourned for the landlord to investigate whether the problem had been repaired properly and for the landlord to call their tradesperson as a witness at the next hearing. A Sinhala interpreter was ordered for this purpose. Landlord’s evidence and submissions at second hearing on 30 June 2025
At the second hearing, Mr Khan accepted that the repair had not been completed properly by the date of the first hearing on 28 March 2025 as they originally thought.
Mr Khan submitted updated photographs showing the laundry wall had now been replaced and mouldy timber framing properly treated. Mr Khan gave evidence the repair work was completed on 10 April 2025.
Mr Khan claims that the reason the work was not completed by the date of the first hearing was because the tradesperson injured themselves during the repairs. Mr Khan claims the tradesperson boarded up the wall in the bathroom to make it usable for the tenant with the intention of returning at a later date to complete the repairs. Mr Kham claims he had no knowledge that the tradesperson had not returned to the premises to complete the work.
The tradesperson used by Mr Khan was present at the hearing however, was unable to give evidence as the Sinhala interpreter was sick and unable to attend. Analysis
The tenant submitted an email sent to the landlord on 12 December 2024 raising a number of maintenance issues at the address, including mould in the bathroom. On the balance of probabilities, I find this to be the date the tenant first brought the issue to the landlord’s attention.
The tenant submitted photographs of the bathroom before the repair work was completed. The bath and wall running up the side of the bath appear dark.
The tenant also submitted photographs of the inside of the wall once it had been removed, which shows a significant amount of mould is present.
On the basis of the photographs submitted by the tenant, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that mould growing behind the walls and under the floors in the bathroom was a defect that needed to be repaired.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that they were on leave between 12 December 2024 – 13 January 2025. This explains the delay in responding to the tenant’s email in the first instance.
Although some of the repairs were completed by 6 March 2025, the landlord accepted that the timber framing was not treated and the laundry wall not replaced until 10 April 2025. On the balance of probabilities, I find 10 April 2025 to be the date that the repair work was properly completed.
The timeframe between when the issue was first brought to the landlord’s attention on 12 December 2024 and repaired on 10 April 2025 is approximately 17 weeks. I find this delay to be unreasonable. A reasonable timeframe would have been 28 February 2025, considering that Mr Khan was on leave between 12 December 2024 – 13 January 2025.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA in relation to the issue of mould in the bathroom.
The tenant seeks compensation. I find $60.00 per week to be reasonable. In settling on this figure, I have considered the following factors: a. The presence of mould in the bathroom was significant and presented a serious health concern for the tenant who claims their children were frequently sick. b. A person generally uses their bathroom at least once per day. The fact that repairs to an area of the house that is frequently used were delayed must have been an inconvenience to the tenant. c. The rent should have abated during the period that the tenant was unable to use the bathroom, but it did not. 5 d. The tenant was without hot water in the entire premises for 14 days.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $1,020.00. 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 59(4)(a). HEATHY HOMES STANDARDS (Section 45(1)(bb)) 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 establish a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in regards to heating, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture and drainage. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant claims the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards.
To support their claim, the tenant points to the healthy homes report dated 28 September 2022, which was included with the tenancy agreement. The report states that the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards and highlights the following areas of non-compliance: a. Smoke alarms b. Draughts c. Gutters d. Downpipes e. Ground vapour barrier f. Mechanical ventilation in bathroom g. Heating in living room Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord gave evidence that the healthy homes report dated 28 September 2022 was completed prior to the tenancy, which began on 21 April 2023. The landlord claims all of the issues highlighted in the report were remedied prior to the tenancy beginning and the premises is compliant.
The landlord had a new healthy homes standards report completed on 5 April 2025, which confirms the premises complies with the healthy homes standards. Analysis
The tenancy began on 21 April 2023. The landlord had 120 days to comply with the healthy homes standards.
The healthy homes standards report dated 5 April 2025 concludes that the premises complies with the healthy homes standards in all respects. The results of this report lend credibility to the landlord’s claim that they attended to all of the defects highlighted in the healthy homes standards report dated 28 September 2022 before the tenancy began.
The tenant has not submitted their own healthy homes standards report to refute the findings contained in the report submitted by the landlord.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the premises complied with the healthy homes standards within the required timeframe.
This claim is dismissed.

FILING FEE

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5192611 — State of repair at 3 Dreadon Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5192611 — State of repair at 3 Dreadon Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions