What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5212733?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5212733?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5212733?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5212733?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11921799-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5212733?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5212733?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5212733?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5212733?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11921799-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14 Shera Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5212733 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the in-person hearing on 29 May 2025.

The applicant sought compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the following: a. Garage ceiling leak; b. Wastewater leak in the garden; c. Termites in ceiling above bedroom; d. Hot water cylinder; e. Kitchen tap.

At the outset of the hearing, I noted the parties had previously attended a mediation on 18 December 2023. The mediation was held following the tenant’s previous application for compensation in relation to a plumber’s invoice for work related to the hot water, and complaints of a leaking garage ceiling.

The mediated order dated 18 December 2023 states a full and final settlement was reached on all issues raised by the tenant in that previous application (4741489).

I am unable to adjudicate any claim which has already been determined. The tenant confirmed the present claim relating to the leak in the garage ceiling was the same claim raised in her previous application. The tenant said the claim related to the hot water cylinder arose after 18 December 2023 (or, can be confined to issues after that date).

As stated at the hearing, the claim in relation to the garage ceiling can not be re-litigated. The claim for hot water cylinder issues after 18 December 2023 has not been previously determined and can be considered as part of the present application. The tenancy

The parties entered into an agreement for a fixed-term tenancy commencing 6 October 2023 and ending 3 October 2024. The tenancy continued until it came to an end on 16 March 2025. 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. Compensation: the law

Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state and to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises).

Section 85 RTA provides: 85Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.

The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.

In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: a. The nature of the breach; b. The duration of the breach; and c. The effect of the breach on the party.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in the manner alleged?

Xuemei Han claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 in four respects, each addressed below. (a) Wastewater leak in the garden

The tenant says she noticed mould on the ground outside since the first day she moved in (6 October 2023). She said she was told a water pump had been installed for storm water, and therefore she assumed it related to that. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667.

Ms Han first complained of the issue to the landlord on 25 November 2024. Ms Han says a plumber attended to look into the issue and it was fixed on a date before 10 December 2024.

The tenant lived in the property with her father and two young children. She says her children played outside and she was concerned they were exposed to sewerage leaking in the garden.

I note that after the hearing had ended, the tenant submitted a report prepared by THL Design Group dated 29 May 2025. The tenant stated it was evidence in support of her claim that the water was sewerage. The report records the engineer’s theory that the water was wastewater, and not stormwater. I note the landlord did not have the opportunity to view and comment on that report at the hearing, therefore, while I will accept the evidence for filing, I treat it cautiously.

The landlord says the leaking water was not sewerage, and referred to a statement from the landlord’s plumber produced in support which stated they tested the neighbour’s sewerage system to see if it was causing the issue but found it was not the cause. The landlord says their plumber concluded the leak came from an abandoned storm water pipe which was located under the earth in the garden. They say that once the plumber sealed that abandoned pipe, the issue was resolved.

The landlord says they were unaware of the issue until they were raised by the tenant on 25 November 2024, following which they acted promptly to have the issue resolved.

The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord failed to address the issue of leaking water once they were made aware of it. I am not satisfied the applicant has proven the landlord knew of the issue before 25 November 2024, when the tenant first complained to the property manager.

I do not make any findings as to whether the water was wastewater or stormwater. I find that is not material to my decision. The issue is whether the landlord maintained the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises). I find that once the landlord was aware there was an issue in the backyard, they acted promptly to repair it.

I find the landlord did not breach their obligations under s45 of the RTA. (b) Termites in ceiling of bedroom

The tenant says three months after she moved in she noticed some black dust or marks on surfaces which she could not explain. She says she researched the issue herself and concluded it was likely frass dropped by termites in the ceiling of her bedroom.

The tenant produced photographs taken on or about 14 January 2024, which were sent to the property manager. The tenant says she was told to monitor the situation, and when she complained on 18 January 2024 that it was on-going the tenant, the landlord’s response on 20 January was that any inspection/pest eradication would be at the tenant’s cost as the tenancy had been on-going for more than six months.

The landlord does not dispute the tenant’s version of events. The landlord says when they attended the premises during routine inspections they did not notice any issue. They say in an inspection in January 2025, they noted and photographed some odd dust on a desk but say they could not see the cause.

The landlords say since the tenant moved out there has been no further issues and the landlord has not undertaken any investigation for termites.

The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that there was a termite infestation, and/or that the landlord failed to remedy it. The photographs produced by the tenant do not show there was a termite infestation in the bedroom ceiling, that is simply the tenant’s theory. There are no photos taken of the ceiling showing any signs of infestation, and there has been no assessment completed by a tradesperson qualified to assess such matters. Essentially, there is an absence of sufficient evidence for me to determine the source of the matter found on the tenant’s bedsheets and on some surfaces.

I find the landlord did not breach their obligations under s45 of the RTA. (c) Hot water cylinder

The tenant says there were several issues with the hot water cylinder after 18 December 2023. The tenant says each time there was an issue, she was without hot water until a tradesperson could attend, and sometimes that was for one or two days.

The tenant was unable to say how many times the issues arose, or on which dates. The tenant says she asked the landlord to replace the hot water cylinder in early 2024, but the landlord refused.

The landlord says their records indicated there were only two times when the tenant reported issues with the hot water at the property, and both times occurred prior to 18 December 2023 (and were therefore dealt with in the settlement of the prior application).

The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord breached their obligations to maintain the hot water cylinder in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant has not sufficiently particularised their claim (that is, identified the number of times and on which dates the issues arose) nor has the tenant produced sufficient evidence that the landlord failed to respond to any request for repair within a reasonable timeframe.

I find the landlord did not breach their obligations under s45 of the RTA. (d) Kitchen tap

The tenant says they found black specks coming from the kitchen tap. They say it had been happening for a while, but they first notified the property manager on Friday 21 February 2025. They say they did not received a response.

On Monday 24 February 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord saying they intended to terminate the tenancy. The tenant says the landlord then arranged for someone to attend and fix the kitchen tap on 25 February 2025.

The contractor found the cause of the black flecks was a disintegrating black rubber seal on the inside of the tap. The rubber seal was replaced and the issue was resolved.

The landlord says they received the complaint at 3pm on Friday 21 February 2025 and arranged for a contractor to attend as soon as possible, being on Tuesday 25 February 2025.

The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord breached their obligations to maintain the kitchen tap in a reasonable state of repair. Parts such as rubber seals will deteriorate over time. I am satisfied the landlord acted promptly to resolve the issue once they were made aware of it by the tenant.

I find the landlord did not breach their obligations under s45 of the RTA. Should the tenant’s identifying details be suppressed?

The tenant sought suppression of their name, however, the tenant was not wholly or substantially successful in their claim.

While not automatically entitled to name suppression, I have considered whether I should grant name suppression for the tenant having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest, under section 95A(4) of the RTA.

I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue I need to consider is whether suppressing the tenant’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.

In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the tenant and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interests.

Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Reasons