What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5230674 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 5230674?

The reconciled net award was $290.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5230674?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5230674?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11886803-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5230674 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 5230674?

The reconciled net award was $290.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5230674?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5230674?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11886803-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5230674 — State of repair

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $290.00 immediately, for breaches s45(1)(b) RTA.
The tenant’s remaining claims are not proven and therefore dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 15 May 2025.
The property is a three-bedroom home with a garage (internal access). It is situated down a long driveway and has many neighbours that share the driveway and surround the house.
The tenant was granted her tenancy in October 2018 by [the previous owner] who was the owner of the property at the time.
The written tenancy agreement is between [the previous owner] and the tenant.
In 2020 [the previous owner] sold the property to the current owners [the landlords].
[The landlords] notified the tenant that they were the new owners and since that time the tenant has dealt with [the landlords] on all matters relating to her tenancy and has paid the rent to them.
The tenant and the landlord enjoyed a good relationship for 3 years. In 2023 the landlord increased the rent, and the landlord says that he believed the relationship started to sour from that point. The tenant says that it was not the rent increase that caused the deterioration in the relationship, but from her point of view she felt taken advantage of, she says that when she asked for items to be remedied that the landlord did not action them fast enough, or give them any urgency. She says that the landlord caused her embarrassment with her neighbours, because the landlord cut back hedges and shrubs and left them to the side of the shared driveway, and the way that the landlord repaired the fence using old wood from a neighbour, which left the fence looking old and worn.
[The landlords] have now appointed [property manager] as their property manager from April 2025.
The tenant claims that [the landlords] have breached a number of provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). She claims that they have: a. Failed to provide a tenancy agreement in writing (s13 RTA) b. Failed to provide the tenant with an address for service (s13A(a) RTA) c. Failed to provide a Healthy Homes Statement (s13(1CA)RTA. d. Failed to comply with Healthy Homes Standards. e. Failed to notify the tenant of disposition of the landlord’s interests (s43(1)(a) f. Failed to maintain the property.
At the hearing I was able to clarify the claims with the parties and I identified the following issues which required determination: a) Did the landlords comply with their obligations in section 15 and 43 of the

RTA?

b) Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises? i.Windows ii.Doors iii.Oven iv.Drainage v.Garage door remote. c) Has the landlord failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

Did the landlords comply with their obligations in section 15 and 43 of the

RTA?

A tenancy is between a landlord and tenant. The landlord is the grantor of the tenancy and includes, where appropriate, the lawful successor in title 1 . This means that when a landlord sells a property, the tenancy remains in place, but the new landlords are bound by the existing written tenancy agreement (and the RTA). In this case, it means that when [the landlords] purchased the property in 2020, they were bound by the terms of the tenancy agreement between the tenant and [the previous owner]. The tenancy remained in place, but [the landlords] were now the landlords.
The RTA has two special provisions- (sections 15 and 43), that relate to when a landlord sells the property to someone else during the tenancy. Section 43 says: Where the landlord disposes of his or her interest in the premises to any other person (in this section referred to as the purchaser), the following provisions shall apply: (a)the landlord shall give to the tenant written notice of the disposition, including the name and contact address of the purchaser so far as those particulars are known to the landlord: (b) until that notice is received by the tenant, the tenant shall not be obliged to pay any rent to the purchaser, and shall not be liable to the purchaser in any proceedings in respect of any sum paid to the landlord on account of rent: (c)from and after the date on which the tenant receives that notice, or such later date as may be specified in the notice, the tenant shall pay to the purchaser all sums due and payable by way of rent in respect of any period commencing after that date: (d)subject to any lawful claim made to the Tribunal before the date of settlement, the landlord’s interest in any bond paid by the tenant shall pass to the purchaser on the earlier of the date of settlement or the date of possession. (1A) The following must also be included in the notice under subsection (1)(a) if known to the landlord: (a) the purchaser’s contact mobile telephone number (if any): (b) the purchaser’s contact email address (if any). (2) Nothing in subsection (1)(a) or (1A) shall absolve the purchaser from the obligation imposed on the purchaser by section 15. Section 15 says: Where, during the term of any tenancy, the landlord’s or tenant’s interest passes to some other person, that other person shall, within 10 working days thereafter, cause the other party to the tenancy to be notified of— 1 See definition of landlord s2 RTA. (a) the full name and contact address of that person; and (b) an address for service, being the address at which notices and other documents relating to the tenancy will be accepted by or on behalf of the person. (1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), the following must be notified with the person’s contact address: (a)the person’s contact mobile telephone number (if any): (b)the person’s contact email address (if any). (2) A landlord or tenant who fails to comply with this section commits an unlawful act.
The tenant claims that the landlord did not provide her a tenancy agreement in writing. There was no requirement for the landlord to provide the tenant with a new tenancy agreement as the landlord was bound by the tenancy agreement entered into by [the previous owner] and the tenant. The bond of $2040 was deposited in the bond centre in December 2018 and is still there. I have checked with the Bond Centre today and the landlord’s name is recorded as [the previous owner] as the original landlord, [the landlords] and now [the property manager] as agents.
The tenant claims that the landlord’s did not give her a physical address for service pursuant to section 15(1)(b) RTA when they took over the tenancy, and that she still does not have their postal address. I am not satisfied that the landlord has breached s15(1)(b) because the landlord gave the tenant a written note of their contact phone numbers and email addresses when they brought the property in 2020. The tenant has always corresponded using those email addresses and the phone numbers. Section 15 (1)(b) does not require a physical address and it clear from the correspondence between the parties that there was no issue with the communication by email. The tenant has served both this application and prior to that 14-day notices on the landlord at the landlord’s email addresses without any issue.
The tenant made claims at the hearing regarding [the property manager] appointment. I advised the tenant that the landlord was free to choose any property management company they preferred to manage the property. The appointment of the agent is not the same as a disposition of the landlord’s interest, because the landlord still owns the property.
The landlord is not in breach of s15 or s43 RTA and the tenant’s claims pursuant to those sections and failure to comply with the provisions of s13 and failure to lodge the bond are dismissed.
As this tenancy commenced before 1 July 2021, the landlord did not have to comply with the Residential Tenancies healthy Homes Standards until 2025 2 and therefore there can be no breach of s 45(1)(bb). The tenancy was extended to a periodic tenancy on the 3 May 2022. As the tenancy was extended rather than renewed then the landlord did not have to comply until 2025. The tenant’s claims for failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards are therefore struck out.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property?

The tenant has raised a number of items that she says that the landlord has failed to maintain. Whilst many of these items have by today been repaired, the tenant says that the landlord did not act to repair them within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 45(1)(b) RTA provides that the landlord shall “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.”
Tenants have an obligation to raise items of repair with the landlord in a reasonable time frame. A landlord has no obligation to fix a problem before it occurs or is noticed, but once a problem is noticed or should have been reasonably noticed, then the landlord must attend to a repair or replacement within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on factors such as what is broken, how easy it is to fix and the availability of repair person. Window latch in the garage
The tenant says that the landlord failed to fix window latches in a reasonably time. The tenant notified the landlord of a broken window latch in the garage on the 12 August 2024 by text she included a picture of the window latch that had broken. The broken latch meant window unable to be closed properly. On the 31 August the landlord was coming to fix another item. The tenant had to remind the landlord to fix the window latch. The landlord fixed the window latch on the 31 August 2024. The tenant says that the latch being broken meant that cold air was coming in. The tenant was ill over this time, and she says she was concerned about security in the house and draughts.
I am satisfied that the landlord breached s45(1)(b) RTA by failing to repair the window latch in the garage within a reasonable time. There was no investigation or attempt to repair for almost 3 weeks and no real reason given for why it took so long. Whilst the landlord assumed that this was not of urgency 2 The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes) Regulations 2019 take effect in accordance with Subpart 1AA. As this tenancy commenced before 1 July 2021 the obligation to comply with the Standards does not take effect until July 2025 for the tenant because she had previously left the window open to allow her cat to come in and out, the landlord did not confirm this with the tenant.
This is a relatively minor breach and I award the tenant $40 in compensation for the breach, this takes into account the tenants concern about security and the extra costs of heating the house as she was unable to close the window properly. Other window latches.
The tenant also claims that the landlord breached s45(1)(b) RTA by failing to replace or repair other broken latches. The tenant said that at the January 2025 inspection that she showed the landlord how a number of window latches were failing as the latches were becoming loose. The tenant says that whilst the landlord has changed some window latches he should have replaced them all as they are all of the same era and likely to fail soon. She said that the landlord did not replace loose window latches only those that had broken completely, she says that this is not reasonable.
I am not satisfied that the landlord breached s45(1)(b). A landlord is only responsible for fixing items that have broken, not items that may break soon because of age.
The tenant also says that the landlord has filed to fix the seals around the windows. The seals on the northern side of the house have started to break down from age. The tenant says that there are large gaps in the windows where the seals have broken down, she said that this causes the glass to move and lets in draughts. The tenant did not have any photographs of the gaps but demonstrated that they were at least an inch wide in some places.
The landlord says that as soon as the tenant notified him of the problems with the window seals, he had it investigated and that the seals in the windows that require it will be replaced on the 23 May 2025. The landlord disputes the large gaps in the windows, he says that a healthy homes assessment was carried out in May last year which found no large gaps over 3mm, he says that the tenant has never shown him a gap that is an inch wide.
I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to maintain the window seals. The landlord has addressed the problem when it was drawn to their attention. They have done so in a timely manner. In the absence of any document that corroborates that there are large gaps I am not satisfied that the gaps are of such a nature and extent that the window seals required immediate or urgent replacement. The oven.
The tenant told the landlord about the glass in the door of her wall oven being loose in January this year. The landlord had an appliance tradesman come and look at the oven, the tradesperson recommended repair, but told the landlord that there was rust in the door and it would fail soon due to age. The tradesperson fixed the door but the tenant says it has not been fixed properly as the glass still moves in the gap. The door does not seal properly, and heat comes out.
The landlord had his tradesman to the property again, they said that the oven was safe, working and whilst it was not fully sealed, this did not pose any problems.
I am satisfied that the landlord has fulfilled the obligation to repair the oven. The tradespeople have fixed it so they are satisfied that it is functional and safe.
At the hearing the landlord gave the tenant an assurance that he would replace the oven by 31 March 2026 or earlier if it fails. He accepts that the oven is nearing the end of its lifespan. The drainage.
The tenant says that the concrete slab at the back of the house has sunk, which allows water to pond on the slab. She showed videos of the problem.
The landlord says that he was not aware that this issue would be discussed before today’s hearing, and so has not prepared a response. However, he says that he is not aware of any issue or defect in the property.
From the evidence available to me today it is not clear that there is a defect in the property that needs to be remedied by the landlord. However, as this was not a claim that the landlord understood would be discussed I make no orders or findings. The garage door remote.
The tenant says that the garage door remote that she had was old and the button was sticky. In March the remote stopped working and the tenant notified the landlord of the problem the landlord came and got the remote, he took 13 days to change the battery, but it was still problematic. The tenant complained again, and the landlord gave the tenant a new remote on the 5 April 2025.
The landlord said that he accepted that 13 days was too long to change a battery, it was a standard battery. He said he wanted to try a battery change first before paying for a new remote.
The property has an internal access, which the tenant says is the only access she uses. The key (she says she only had one other) was used by her children. The tenant said being without the remote was annoying and inconvenient. She was unable to use the garage to enter the house during this time. I am satisfied that the landlord failed to repair the remote within a reasonable time. I award the tenant $250 for this breach, this takes into account the stress and inconvenience and lack of amenity. Filing fee
As both parties have been partially successful, I do not award the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties have asked for suppression. As both have been partly successful I grant name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5230674 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5230674 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RTA?

RTA?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RTA?

RTA?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions