What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5262439 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 5262439?

Compensation: Ceiling Leak Jan 2025: $3,910.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Electricity: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: HHS: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rubbish Bin Hire: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,297.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5262439?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5262439?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12769716-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5262439 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 5262439?

Compensation: Ceiling Leak Jan 2025: $3,910.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Electricity: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: HHS: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rubbish Bin Hire: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,297.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5262439?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5262439?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12769716-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5262439 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5262439 — net $195.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 1.8.2025	$7,297.14		Rent arrears to 1.8.2025
Repairs to glass	$138.00		Repairs to glass
Compensation: ceiling leak Jan 2025		$3,910.00	ceiling leak Jan 2025
Compensation: damage to belongings		$800.00	damage to belongings
Compensation: rubbish bin hire		$400.00	rubbish bin hire
Compensation: other repair issues		$200.00	other repair issues
Compensation: HHS		$400.00	HHS
Compensation: electricity		$50.00	electricity
Total award	$7,435.14	$5,760.00
Net award	$195.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$195.14

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5262439 — net $195.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 1.8.2025	$7,297.14		Rent arrears to 1.8.2025
Repairs to glass	$138.00		Repairs to glass
Compensation: ceiling leak Jan 2025		$3,910.00	ceiling leak Jan 2025
Compensation: damage to belongings		$800.00	damage to belongings
Compensation: rubbish bin hire		$400.00	rubbish bin hire
Compensation: other repair issues		$200.00	other repair issues
Compensation: HHS		$400.00	HHS
Compensation: electricity		$50.00	electricity
Total award	$7,435.14	$5,760.00
Net award	$195.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$195.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s names and identifying details.
must pay immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, with [The landlord’s representative] representing the landlord.
The parties have attended two hearings for the two applications. The first hearing was adjourned part-heard, as it was not possible to view the tenant’s video evidence, and a further hearing was scheduled.
At the second hearing, the tenant produced the video evidence, and both parties provided further evidence and submissions. The landlord also produced a Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) assessment report, which was completed after the tenancy had ended. The hearing was adjourned part-heard and concluded on the papers, to give the tenant an opportunity to comment on the HHS report. Background
This is a periodic tenancy which began on 23 September 2020. As noted in the first order issued on 29 July 2025, the tenant has filed an application claiming breaches of landlord obligations to repair the premises, and under the Healthy Homes Standards. He claims compensation following a ceiling leak in January 2025, including for damage to furniture and belongings, use of electricity, and notes communication issues with the landlord. This is application number 5262439.
The landlord has filed a cross application (application number 5265600) seeking termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, payment from the bond, compensation for damage and a previous Tribunal filing fee.
Both parties provided evidence and submissions at the first hearing. Following discussions, the parties agreed that the tenancy was to end on 1 August 2025. This is recorded in the first order. At the second hearing, the parties confirmed that the tenancy had ended on this date, with the keys being returned to the landlord.
At the first hearing, the parties reached agreement that the tenant was to be compensated $50.00 for the electricity. The tenant accepted responsibility for one of the glass repair invoices, for $138.00. However, he did not accept liability for the other invoice for $82.80. At the second hearing, the landlord indicated that the invoice for $82.80 was no longer being claimed. These amounts are recorded above. General principles
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Tenant’s application: 5262439 Leaks, repairs and mould
The tenant seeks compensation for the effect of multiple leaks at the premises, which he has detailed in a timeline. He has provided oral, documentary and photographic/video evidence. This includes evidence of the impact on his health and wellbeing.
The tenant states the first leak occurred on 22 November 2020, which he reported to the landlord. The repairs were completed on 26 November 2020, but the ceiling was left completely open and not patched up. He then inquired about the repairs being completed following a property inspection. Another leak occurred on 2 April 2021, which he reported to the landlord. There were further leaks in November 2022.
The tenant states that on 27 January 2023 he noted mould developing. A builder then attended in April 2023 to fix the mouldy walls. Further repairs were booked by the landlord. During 2024, leaks consistently occurred when there was bad weather and plumbers were sent. On 4 March 2024 there was extreme leaking and holes in the ceiling, following which he sent a video to the landlord.
The most significant event was on 1 January 2025, when the tenant discovered a ceiling leak, and had to use a bucket to collect the water. The following day, he returned home to find the ceiling had collapsed, and fallen onto his bed. The chest of drawers and table were soaked, personal belongings were damaged and contaminated in dirty water. He reported the leak to the landlord on 3 January 2025 and a builder was sent on 5 January 2025. The tenant moved out of the property. He stopped paying rent from 1 January 2025 and resumed on 14 May 2025.
In response, the landlord provided a detailed account of the ongoing repair issues affecting the premises. The landlord explained that most of the issues related to leaks originating from the upstairs unit, which subsequently caused damage to the downstairs unit where the tenant resided. The landlord noted that the upstairs tenants kept a dog and were abusive towards property managers and tradespeople, which created significant challenges in arranging access for repairs.
The landlord states that the first plumbing issue on 9 November 2020 was caused by a faulty shower mixer in the upstairs unit. The plumber later advised that the shower lining may also need to be replaced. However, the upstairs tenants were not prepared to allow access for replacement of the shower box. Additional leaks occurred in 2021, 2022, and 2023.
The landlord states there were also issues with the roof, and on 3 October 2023, the entire roof was replaced. In April 2024, after the upstairs tenants vacated, the landlord replaced the upstairs shower box with a brand new unit. In June 2024, the ceiling and walls were replastered and painted.
In relation to the January 2025 leak, the landlord states that a plumber fixed the upstairs laundry leak, which had caused the downstairs ceiling to collapse and resulted in damage. On 6 January 2025, the ceiling gib was replaced and painted. The landlord notes there were delays in gaining access to the property to replace the carpet, but the carpet was eventually replaced in May 2025.
The landlord explained that it is common practice to leave the ceiling open for a period to monitor whether any further leaks are occurring, and this was the reason for the ceiling remaining open for some time. Legal framework
The landlord’s obligations are set out under section 45 of the RTA. This includes the requirement that the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. 1 The landlord is also required to comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.
The extent of the landlord’s obligation to repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 2 The Court noted that there was no absolute liability/responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. 3 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time. 1 Section 45(1)(b) 2 CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007 3 Section 40(1)(d)
On the issue of mould, as noted by the Tribunal in Semmens v Wadman, 4 mould is commonly present throughout all residential dwellings in New Zealand to some degree. Adjudicator Woodhouse explained that simply having mould in the premises would not be sufficient to establish a breach on the part of the landlord for which compensation can be ordered: Rather, what a tenant must establish, is that there are defects with the premises which have caused mould to develop, or to be at a more extensive level than would otherwise be reasonably expected in a dwelling that meets the required building standards.
In Auckland, many houses produce mould, particularly in view of the levels of humidity in this region. Such mould can usually be addressed by wiping with an appropriate cleaner. Where a property has an inherent problem or a leak causing mould, then the landlord will have a responsibility to remedy the fault. As noted by the Tribunal in Hullia v Tran & Vu 5 the premises must be able to be used and lived in, in the normal way, without excessive mould developing. If this cannot be done, then the problem of mould falls on the landlord to remedy under their obligations to maintain the property. Analysis
Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find that some of the delays in completing the repair work were unreasonable. In making this finding, I acknowledge the landlord’s efforts to resolve the issues, and the evidence, including invoices, to show how it has responded. The landlord has explained that most of the leaks were due to plumbing issues from the unit upstairs, and there were difficulties gaining access to the upstairs unit to repair the leaks.
In terms of the effect of the January 2025 ceiling leak, there was damage to the tenant’s furniture and belongings, so the tenant suffered loss. There is also the loss of amenity due to the extent of damage. The tenant’s evidence indicates some of the mould issues identified were due to the ceiling leak. There was also the effect on his wellbeing, since he suffered anxiety and stress. This was a challenging period for the tenant, and his reasons for moving out are understandable.
The parties do not agree as to when the issues arising from the ceiling leak were finally resolved. The landlord considers the period is 12 weeks, while the tenant believes it was only in May 2025, when the carpet was replaced. However, he acknowledges his part in delays with access for the builders during this time. 4 [2022] NZTT Manukau 310605 5 [2018] NZTT Manukau 4138867
In terms of compensating the tenant for the impact of the January 2025 ceiling leak, I have taken into account the above factors, and note the area of the premises that was affected (the living area/bedroom), the likely duration of the problem, and the resulting effect for the tenant. For the 12 week period from 1 January 2025, he is to be compensated on the basis of 75% of the weekly rent of $390.00, so that is $3,510.00 ($292.50 x 12). For the remainder of the period, he is to be compensated $400.00, bringing the total to $3,910.00.
The tenant is also to be compensated $800.00, for the damage to his furniture and belongings, this being a direct loss arising from the ceiling leak. I also consider $400.00 for the bin hire to be reasonable, since he had to dump the mouldy furniture and other items.
For the loss of amenity arising from the other repair and leak issues, including for the presence of mould, the tenant is to be compensated a further $200.00. These amounts are awarded above. Healthy Homes Standards
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (the HHS).
The landlord has provided an HHS report which was completed on 2 September 2025, after the tenancy ended. Legal framework
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS. The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity. There are exemptions in specific circumstances.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. The HHS has exemptions in specific circumstances.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space. There are exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) of the RTA. Analysis
This tenancy began on 23 September 2020. Therefore, the compliance date is 1 July 2025. This is the date by which the premises was required to comply with the HHS. The tenancy ended on 1 August 2025, being one month after the compliance date.
The first question is whether the landlord complied with its HHS obligations by 1 July 2025. If not, then the issue of compensation for the one month period of non- compliance will need to be considered.
The HHS report completed by Affordable Energy Solutions shows the premises did not meet the HHS in terms of the heating and draught stopping standards. In terms of the heating standard, there was no fixed heating source in the main living area, and it was recommended that a heat pump that met the minimum heating rating be installed. The draught stopping standard was not met as the living area windows and the back door needed draught seals.
The HHS report found that the smoke alarm, while appropriately installed and in working order, did not have a compliant battery.
The report also concluded that the premises met the drainage and ventilation standards, and exemptions applied to the insulation and ground moisture barrier. The tenant states that the extractor fan in the kitchen is not working, but this is disputed by the landlord.
On the basis of the Affordable Energy Solutions report, it is clear that the premises had not complied with the HHS by 1 July 2025. Taking into account the nature and extent of the breach, the duration (one month during this tenancy), the resulting effect for the tenant, I consider the amount of $400.00 to be reasonable compensation. Landlord’s application: 5265600 Rent arrears
The landlord claims rent arrears of $7,297.14, as shown in the updated rent summary produced at the hearing. The landlord’s rent records have not been disputed by the tenant.
Being satisfied that the landlord’s claim for rent has been established, this is awarded above. Other claims
The landlord’s other compensation claims for damage have been addressed above.
As explained at the hearing, the claim for the filing fee arising from a previous mediation is declined, since the matter was settled, and the fee ought to have been addressed during that process. Filing fee and name suppression
Each party has had some success, and some of the matters have been settled between the parties, so there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties seek name suppression, and each has had some success with their claims. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5262439 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5262439 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions