What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5193453 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5193453?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5193453?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5193453?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13815131-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5193453 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5193453?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5193453?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5193453?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13815131-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 49 Woodglen Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5193453 — Mould & damp

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing, which was held by video conference. Shane Ryder represented Anne Duncan Real Estate Limited. Lauren Baxby represented The Rent House Limited. Background
This tenancy began on 18 October 2021. The tenancy property is a two- bedroom home with a small study/hobby room, which is part of a standalone house with a separate tenancy upstairs.
At the outset the landlord was Anne Duncan Real Estate, but The Rent House Limited took over management of the property on 23 December 2023. The tenancy ended on 21 January 2025.
The tenant filed a claim on 10 March 2025 seeking refund of his bond and compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain due to a leak that occurred at the property.
When the matter was first heard on 14 November 2025 (following an earlier adjournment) it became apparent that only The Rent House Limited had been served with the tenant’s application. The Tribunal therefore made orders for service on Anne Duncan Real Estate who were also joined as a party.
As The Rent House Limited had not made a claim against the bond, and confirmed that they did not intend to do so, the bond was refunded to the tenant. The tenant’s claims were adjourned for further hearing.
The hearing proceeded today with all parties present. Onus and evidence
As with all claims that come before the Tribunal, the onus is on the party bringing the claim to prove their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).
For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence filed in this decision but the parties can be assured that all of the evidence has been carefully considered. The law
Section 45(1)(b) RTA provides that a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, taking into account the age and condition of the premises.
Tenants have a corresponding obligation under section 40(1)(d) RTA to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises or the need for any repairs. The tenant’s claim
The tenant said that in March 2022 there was a leak there was flooding in the study and that items stored in there became wet. The tenant produced photos showing a damp area of carpet and photos of wet items including a suitcase.
The tenant said the landlord told him to keep an eye on the area and that it would probably dry out. He said that nobody came to look at the leak until August/September 2022 but that no repairs were undertaken. He said that he could not use the room after that out of concern that it would flood again and his possessions would be damaged.
The tenant said that when The Rent House took over the management of the property they did not take any steps to fix the leaking area despite being told about it at the first inspection.
The tenant seeks a 15% rent reduction from the time that the leak/flooding occurred in March 2022 until the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s response
Mr Ryder said that the tenant contacted him to advise of a leak in March 2022 and that he immediately responded asking for more information but that the tenant never replied. He said that he thought that it must be a one-off leak as there had been an extreme weather event at the time, and so was surprised when the tenant raised the issue of a leak in August 2022 when the parties were negotiating a rent increase.
Mr Ryder said that after the tenant raised the issue a contractor was sent to the property in August/September 2022 to inspect the area, but he no longer has records of the work done as the management of the property ended. He said that the issue was never raised by the tenant again.
Ms Baxby explained that The Rent House Limited were unaware of any past leak when they took over management of the property, but that they must have been told about it by the tenant’s wife as the first inspection report records that there was a leak that had been repaired. She said that the tenant did not raise the leak at any stage during their management of the property.
Both landlords produced inspection reports from 3 monthly inspections and explained that despite being invited to notify the landlord of any concerns or maintenance issues as part of those inspections, the tenant never did so. Discussion
On 21 March 2022 the tenant sent and email to the landlord: “Just letting you know we have one of the small side room next to kitchen was flooded with water this morning. These are the pictures below”
The attached photos show damp carpet in the corner of the room and a suitcase that appears to be wet along one side.
Mr Ryder responded the same day: “Thanks for letting me know. Did it just come through one corner of the room? The carpet is indoor/outdoor carpet, so it will dry reasonably quickly but let me know if there is any other damage?”
The tenant does not appear to have responded or to have raised the issue again until September 2022 when the parties were negotiating a rent renewal. The landlord offered the tenant a fixed term ($410 per week) or a periodic tenancy ($420 per week). During these email discussions the tenant said that he was happy to pay $420 to keep a periodic lease but expressed concern that about who would be liable if the leak reoccurred and damaged his possessions.
Mr Ryder responded to say that he not been advised that the leak was a recurring issue, and that the owner had organised someone to look into the leak who would contact the tenant. He also explained that while the landlord has insurance cover, this does not cover tenant items. There was some further discussion about whether the tenant would continue to use the small room for storage.
At the hearing both Mr Ryder and the tenant agreed that the owner had arranged for a contractor to investigate the leak. However, this occurred over four years ago, and as Anne Duncan Real Estate no longer manage the property, they have no evidence about what was done. Mr Ryder did not recall any extensive works and thought it was most likely that the contractor did a visual check. The tenant was also not sure what was done.
There was no evidence however that the leak occurred again after the initial leak in March 2022.
The inspection reports produced by both landlords do not record any further leaks (or notifications of leaks) and the accompanying photos show the room was used for storage of a small number of items.
The first inspection report by The Rent House Limited records a previous leak having been repaired.
At the hearing the tenant said that he did not go into the small room after March 2022 and so did not know if a leak happened again.
Having reviewed all of the evidence I do not consider that the tenant has proved that either landlord has breached their maintenance obligations.
It appears that there was one leak in March 2022, which was investigated as soon as the landlord at that time was made aware that it may potentially be a recurring issue, but there is no evidence that the leak was in fact ongoing.
The second landlord appears to have been advised by the tenant that there had been a leak which had been repaired, and the issue was then not raised again, despite the tenant having the opportunity to do so. Filing fee and name suppression
As the tenant has not been the successful (or substantially successful) party I have not reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant sought an order for name suppression but as he has not been the successful (or substantially successful party) he is not entitled to an order for name suppression (see section 95A RTA).

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing, which was held by video conference. Shane Ryder represented Anne Duncan Real Estate Limited. Lauren Baxby represented The Rent House Limited. Background
This tenancy began on 18 October 2021. The tenancy property is a two- bedroom home with a small study/hobby room, which is part of a standalone house with a separate tenancy upstairs.
At the outset the landlord was Anne Duncan Real Estate, but The Rent House Limited took over management of the property on 23 December 2023. The tenancy ended on 21 January 2025.
The tenant filed a claim on 10 March 2025 seeking refund of his bond and compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain due to a leak that occurred at the property.
When the matter was first heard on 14 November 2025 (following an earlier adjournment) it became apparent that only The Rent House Limited had been served with the tenant’s application. The Tribunal therefore made orders for service on Anne Duncan Real Estate who were also joined as a party.
As The Rent House Limited had not made a claim against the bond, and confirmed that they did not intend to do so, the bond was refunded to the tenant. The tenant’s claims were adjourned for further hearing.
The hearing proceeded today with all parties present. Onus and evidence
As with all claims that come before the Tribunal, the onus is on the party bringing the claim to prove their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).
For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence filed in this decision but the parties can be assured that all of the evidence has been carefully considered. The law
Section 45(1)(b) RTA provides that a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, taking into account the age and condition of the premises.
Tenants have a corresponding obligation under section 40(1)(d) RTA to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises or the need for any repairs. The tenant’s claim
The tenant said that in March 2022 there was a leak there was flooding in the study and that items stored in there became wet. The tenant produced photos showing a damp area of carpet and photos of wet items including a suitcase.
The tenant said the landlord told him to keep an eye on the area and that it would probably dry out. He said that nobody came to look at the leak until August/September 2022 but that no repairs were undertaken. He said that he could not use the room after that out of concern that it would flood again and his possessions would be damaged.
The tenant said that when The Rent House took over the management of the property they did not take any steps to fix the leaking area despite being told about it at the first inspection.
The tenant seeks a 15% rent reduction from the time that the leak/flooding occurred in March 2022 until the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s response
Mr Ryder said that the tenant contacted him to advise of a leak in March 2022 and that he immediately responded asking for more information but that the tenant never replied. He said that he thought that it must be a one-off leak as there had been an extreme weather event at the time, and so was surprised when the tenant raised the issue of a leak in August 2022 when the parties were negotiating a rent increase.
Mr Ryder said that after the tenant raised the issue a contractor was sent to the property in August/September 2022 to inspect the area, but he no longer has records of the work done as the management of the property ended. He said that the issue was never raised by the tenant again.
Ms Baxby explained that The Rent House Limited were unaware of any past leak when they took over management of the property, but that they must have been told about it by the tenant’s wife as the first inspection report records that there was a leak that had been repaired. She said that the tenant did not raise the leak at any stage during their management of the property.
Both landlords produced inspection reports from 3 monthly inspections and explained that despite being invited to notify the landlord of any concerns or maintenance issues as part of those inspections, the tenant never did so. Discussion
On 21 March 2022 the tenant sent and email to the landlord: “Just letting you know we have one of the small side room next to kitchen was flooded with water this morning. These are the pictures below”
The attached photos show damp carpet in the corner of the room and a suitcase that appears to be wet along one side.
Mr Ryder responded the same day: “Thanks for letting me know. Did it just come through one corner of the room? The carpet is indoor/outdoor carpet, so it will dry reasonably quickly but let me know if there is any other damage?”
The tenant does not appear to have responded or to have raised the issue again until September 2022 when the parties were negotiating a rent renewal. The landlord offered the tenant a fixed term ($410 per week) or a periodic tenancy ($420 per week). During these email discussions the tenant said that he was happy to pay $420 to keep a periodic lease but expressed concern that about who would be liable if the leak reoccurred and damaged his possessions.
Mr Ryder responded to say that he not been advised that the leak was a recurring issue, and that the owner had organised someone to look into the leak who would contact the tenant. He also explained that while the landlord has insurance cover, this does not cover tenant items. There was some further discussion about whether the tenant would continue to use the small room for storage.
At the hearing both Mr Ryder and the tenant agreed that the owner had arranged for a contractor to investigate the leak. However, this occurred over four years ago, and as Anne Duncan Real Estate no longer manage the property, they have no evidence about what was done. Mr Ryder did not recall any extensive works and thought it was most likely that the contractor did a visual check. The tenant was also not sure what was done.
There was no evidence however that the leak occurred again after the initial leak in March 2022.
The inspection reports produced by both landlords do not record any further leaks (or notifications of leaks) and the accompanying photos show the room was used for storage of a small number of items.
The first inspection report by The Rent House Limited records a previous leak having been repaired.
At the hearing the tenant said that he did not go into the small room after March 2022 and so did not know if a leak happened again.
Having reviewed all of the evidence I do not consider that the tenant has proved that either landlord has breached their maintenance obligations.
It appears that there was one leak in March 2022, which was investigated as soon as the landlord at that time was made aware that it may potentially be a recurring issue, but there is no evidence that the leak was in fact ongoing.
The second landlord appears to have been advised by the tenant that there had been a leak which had been repaired, and the issue was then not raised again, despite the tenant having the opportunity to do so. Filing fee and name suppression
As the tenant has not been the successful (or substantially successful) party I have not reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant sought an order for name suppression but as he has not been the successful (or substantially successful party) he is not entitled to an order for name suppression (see section 95A RTA).

Tenancy Tribunal case 5193453 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 1, 49 Woodglen Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5193453 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 1, 49 Woodglen Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions