What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5205171 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 5205171?

Compensation: Painting 20 - 26 Mar 2…: $585.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $334.29 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,011.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5205171?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5205171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11926737-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5205171 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 5205171?

Compensation: Painting 20 - 26 Mar 2…: $585.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $334.29 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,011.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5205171?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5205171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11926737-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5205171 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5205171 — net $752.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 Jun 2025	$4,011.43		Rent arrears to 3 Jun 2025
Compensation: Toilet repairs 17 - 20 Mar 2025		$334.29	Toilet repairs 17 - 20 Mar 2025
Compensation: Painting 20 - 26 Mar 2025		$585.00	Painting 20 - 26 Mar 2025
Total award	$4,011.43	$919.29
Net award	$752.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$752.14

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5205171 — net $752.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 Jun 2025	$4,011.43		Rent arrears to 3 Jun 2025
Compensation: Toilet repairs 17 - 20 Mar 2025		$334.29	Toilet repairs 17 - 20 Mar 2025
Compensation: Painting 20 - 26 Mar 2025		$585.00	Painting 20 - 26 Mar 2025
Total award	$4,011.43	$919.29
Net award	$752.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$752.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is reduced and now ends at 5pm, 3 June 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,340.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $752.14 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the in-person hearing on 3 June 2025. The landlord was represented by property manager, [Property Manager].
The tenant applied for early release from the fixed-term tenancy on the basis the premises were not inhabitable from the commencement of the tenancy. At the start of the tenancy, the tenant moved some belongings into the premises but says she did not reside there due to the uninhabitable conditions. The tenant seeks reimbursement of all rent and bond paid. The tenant also seeks reimbursement of electricity costs incurred during the tenancy, which the tenant says were not due to electricity consumed by the tenant. The tenant says that on 19 March 2025 they gave notice that the premises was not inhabitable and the lease should be cancelled as from that date.
The landlord has cross-applied seeking rent arrears to 3 June 2025, being $4,011.43. While the application said the premises was abandoned, the landlord says the premises were not abandoned and the landlord has not taken back possession. The landlord sought return of the keys (agreed to by the tenant in the course of the hearing) and termination of the tenancy as at the hearing date. The landlord says the tenant should be required to pay rent until the date of the hearing, pursuant to the fixed-term tenancy agreement. The tenancy
The premises is a one-bedroom, one-bathroom unit. The landlord estimates the premises is more than 20 years old.
The parties entered into a fixed term tenancy commencing 13 March 2025 and ending 12 March 2026.
As at March 2025, the tenant urgently needed to reside within a desired school zone, which this premises is within, to permit enrolment of her child at that school. By securing this tenancy, the tenant was able to successfully enrol her child at the desired school. Burden and standard of proof
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo 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 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.

Should the tenancy be terminated for breach that renders premises uninhabitable?

The parties agree that the fixed-term tenancy should be terminated. They disagree as to when it should be terminated.
The tenant says it should be terminated following her notice given by email on 19 March 2025 that the premises were uninhabitable, that is pursuant to s59A of the RTA.
The landlord denies the premises were uninhabitable and says the tenant still has the keys to the premises, and therefore is still in possession, pursuant to the fixed-term tenancy. The landlord seeks return of the keys and termination of the fixed-term tenancy as at the date of hearing, being 3 June 2025.
The Tribunal may terminate the tenancy where, as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement, the premises have been destroyed or are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. See section 59A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Tenant’s evidence
The tenant says the landlord breached their obligations under the RTA to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
The tenant says because of this breach by the landlord, the premises were so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable from the commencement of the tenancy. The damage was said to be: a. Visible mould and peeling paint; b. The toilet was leaking effluent from 17 March 2025 making it unusable; c. The kitchen range had a chipped glass cook top; d. The seals around the windows and doors were inadequate.
The tenant produced photographs taken on 17, 18 and 20 March 2025 which she says shows the condition the premises were in at the commencement of the tenancy on 13 March 2025. On 17 March 2025, the tenant notified the landlord that the premises were not clean and the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend on 18 March 2025. The contractor determined the issues complained of (peeling paint and exposed wood around windows, mould on ceilings) would be best remedied by painting, rather than cleaning.
The tenant says that on 17 March 2025, they also discovered the toilet was leaking effluent water on the bathroom floor. The tenant notified the landlord the same day. The landlord arranged for a plumber to attend who, on 20 March 2025, replaced a broken seal to remediate the issue.
Before the repair was completed, on 19 March 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord stating, “This lease must be canceled immediately as the unit that I have rented is not habitable, and has not been since the beginning of the lease term.”
The tenant says she removed her belongings from the property by 27 March 2025. She says by that time, the landlord had arranged for painters to re-paint ceilings and walls, and as a result, there was dust throughout the premises and on her belongings.
The tenant did not reside at the premises at any time. The tenant resided at a property she owns in a suburb nearby.
The tenant seeks reimbursement of electricity costs, being $67.65 which the tenant has paid to the provider, for electricity supplied to the premises between 13 March – 15 April 2025. Landlord’s evidence
The landlord says the premises was left reasonably clean and tidy and in a reasonable state of repair following the end of the previous tenancy. An inspection report dated 4 March 2025 was filed in support.
The landlord says when the tenant raised issues with the cleanliness of the premises on 17 March 2025, the property manager promptly arranged for a cleaner to come and assess the property on 18 March 2025. The cleaner reported to the property manager that the issue was not cleanliness, but rather than the peeling paint and mould should be remedied by re-painting the areas identified.
The landlord says they arranged for the painting work to be done. They say it was completed sometime between 20 – 27 March 2025. An invoice itemising the work done was filed in support. While the work involved painting of the ceilings and walls in almost the entire apartment, the landlord says it did not render the property uninhabitable. The landlord does accept that the tenant is entitled to some compensation for the inconvenience the painting process caused the tenant during the week of 20 – 27 March 2025.
As for the leaking toilet, the landlord says the toilet was not showing any signs of leaking on 4 March 2025 during the final inspection held in relation to the previous tenant. The landlord says when the tenant first reported the issue on 17 March 2025, the landlord arranged for a plumber to attend. The landlord says there was some confusion in communications with the tenant which meant the plumber did not attend until 20 March 2025, but the landlord says the issue was remedied on that day by the plumber.
The landlord acknowledges that the toilet was leaking for the period 17 – 20 March 2025, and acknowledges that it was the only toilet in the premises. The landlord says they can not comment on whether the leak was effluent, and/or whether that made the toilet unusable, but agree that the leak would cause some inconvenience, for which the tenant should be compensated. My analysis
I am not satisfied the tenant has proved that the landlord was in breach of the tenancy agreement, or of the RTA, as at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord has presented evidence that the property was in a reasonable state of repair at that time.
I am not satisfied that the issues such as cleanliness, peeling paint, or other signs of mould and/or wear on the ceilings and walls rendered the premises uninhabitable. Where the tenant found the property did not meet the standard under the RTA, the proper step was to raise it with the landlord and ask that they bring the property to standard. The tenant is entitled to be compensated for the inconvenience or lack of amenity while any such repairs are undertaken. I consider the painting of the (almost) entire interior of the premises meant the tenant should be compensated one week’s rent while that work was undertaken and make an award accordingly.
I am also not satisfied that the leaking toilet was a result of the landlord’s breach of the tenancy agreement or RTA. I find the toilet was in working order and not leaking as at 4 March 2025. I am satisfied that ,following the tenant bringing it to the property manager’s attention on 17 March 2025, it was then fixed by a plumber on 20 March 2025. I am not satisfied the leak rendered the premises uninhabitable. While in some circumstances, particularly where, as in this case, the premises has only one toilet, having an unusable toilet will render a premises uninhabitable, the tenant has not proved the clear water leaking from the base of the toilet rendered the toilet unusable. I note the tenant was not residing at the premises at any time and did not give evidence of attempts to use the toilet or impact thereof.
While I do not consider the leaking toilet made the premises uninhabitable, I am satisfied it would impact the tenant’s enjoyment of the premises, and consider it appropriate that the rent abate for the four days the only toilet in the premises was leaking and was not fixed, being 17 – 20 March 2025.
It follows that I find the tenant did not have grounds to terminate the fixed-term tenancy on 19 March 2025 (or a later date). The tenant’s claim under s59A for termination on the basis the landlord’s breach rendered the premises uninhabitable is therefore dismissed.
Having found the tenancy was not lawfully terminated, both parties continue to be bound by the terms of the fixed-term tenancy agreement. It follows that the tenant remains liable for all outgoings during the tenancy and the tenant’s claim for reimbursement of electricity charges is dismissed.
As at the date of hearing, the tenant had not returned their two keys to the unit. The tenant says this was an oversight, and because communications deteriorated between the parties following the tenant filing their application to the Tribunal on 20 March 2025. As the tenant has not yielded possession to the landlord, the landlord has not taken steps to find a new tenant and the tenant remains liable to pay rent until the fixed-term tenancy is terminated.
By order of the Tribunal, the tenancy is now terminated. By consent, the tenant agrees to deliver the keys to the property manager’s office by 5pm on 3 June 2025. The tenant noted she may not be able to locate the second key, in which case she acknowledged that she would reimburse the property manager for the cost of fitting a new lock and key set.

How much does the tenant owe?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing in rent calculated to the hearing date.
I note that the landlord’s rent records record that the tenant was credited with $2,340.00 on 14 March 2025. That amount, while initially paid to the landlord as bond, was not lodged with the Bond Centre. On or around the same date, the tenant paid a further $2,340.00 directly to the Bond Centre in order to receive confirmation of the bond being lodged quickly, in support of her application to the desired school. The $2,340.00 paid to the landlord on 14 March 2025 has been applied towards outstanding rent owed by the tenant.
As set out above, the amount owed in rent arrears is reduced by the amounts awarded in compensation to the tenant for the impact of the leaking toilet and painting repairs. Should either party reimburse the other party’s application fee?
Both parties sought reimbursement of the application fee from the other party.
As the tenant has not been successful, the tenant is not entitled to reimbursement from the landlord.
The landlord has been partly successful in their counterclaim. Pursuant to s102(4)(b), the Tribunal may order that the unsuccessful party pay the successful party the filing fee paid for the application.
I decline to make such an order in this case. I note that this matter is one which could have been resolved had both parties engaged with each other in a civil manner. The property manager’s tone in written communications provided in evidence was unhelpful, and in my view, contributed to this matter coming before the Tribunal, rather than be being resolved between the parties. Should the landlord’s identifying details be suppressed?
Both parties also sought suppression of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
As the landlord’s application was substantially successful, the landlord is entitled to name suppression and I make the order accordingly.
The tenant was not wholly or substantially successful in their claim. I have considered whether I should grant name suppression order for the tenant having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under section 95A(4) of the RTA.
I grant suppression of the tenant’s name. I do so on the basis I accept that the tenant made the application to the Tribunal partly because communications between the parties deteriorated to a point where it was not possible for the parties to resolve matters on their own.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5205171 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5205171 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated for breach that renders premises uninhabitable?

How much does the tenant owe?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated for breach that renders premises uninhabitable?

How much does the tenant owe?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions