What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5272101 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 5272101?

Compensation: Rent rebate from 16 No…: $23,942.85 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $30,960.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5272101?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5272101?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12171266-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5272101 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 5272101?

Compensation: Rent rebate from 16 No…: $23,942.85 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $30,960.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5272101?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5272101?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12171266-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5272101 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5272101 — net $7,017.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 August 2025	$30,960.14		Rent arrears to 1 August 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Rent rebate from 16 November 2020 to		$23,942.85	Rent rebate from 16 November 2020 to
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$30,987.14	$23,969.85
Net award	$7,017.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,017.29

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5272101 — net $7,017.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 August 2025	$30,960.14		Rent arrears to 1 August 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Rent rebate from 16 November 2020 to		$23,942.85	Rent rebate from 16 November 2020 to
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$30,987.14	$23,969.85
Net award	$7,017.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,017.29

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the Tenant and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord], at 11:59pm on Friday 1 August 2025.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord] $7,017.29 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
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 fractionally 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
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. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. 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. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached her section 45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations to the tenant to maintain the premise in a reasonable state of repair?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b) the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) to provide and maintain the premise in a reasonable state of repair in all the circumstances.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
The extent of the landlord’s obligation to repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 6 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 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. 6 CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007. notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair.5 7 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time. The Court stated: “... the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be”.
Breaching this s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00, if the breach(es) was intentional. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenant.
I note that the tenant has raised during the hearing that the premise did not comply with the heathy homes standards (s45(1)(bb) of the RTA), nor did it comply with comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premise (s 45(1)(c) of the RTA) and the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR). Specifically, Regulation 15 of the HIR states every house must be free from dampness, and Regulation 6 of the HIR requires a fireplace and chimney or other approved heating in living rooms. Regulation 6 still applies to tenancies that commenced before July 2019 for which the healthy homes heating, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping standards did not apply to 1 July 2025. He stated that he had chosen to seek a rent reduction of $200.00 per week for the period he lost the amenity of the second bedroom only as he just wanted what was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances but stated that he had lived with the growing impact of the leak from the start of the tenancy until the leak related issues were fully remediated on 19 June 2025. Therefore, the tenant consciously chose not to pursue these other claims in his application, even though he had sufficient evidence to support these claims and not to pursue a rent reduction from the start of the tenancy. Leak related damages to the apartment from 27 August 2016 to June 2025
The partes agree that the apartment suffered water related damage as a result of an elusive leak that took years to locate and remediate.
The tenant says he found water under the flooring in the kitchen from the start of his tenancy and the leak that was causing this issue became worse over the tenure of his tenancy. 7 RTA, section 40(1)(d).
The parties agreed the leak was intermittent and difficult to find and therefore it did not get fully remediated until 19 June 2025.
The tenant says that he accepted that the landlord was not intentionally failing to fix the issue and that there were other parties involved in the identification and remediation of the leak related issues. However, he states that he suffered stress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity from the start of the tenancy and that stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity increased significantly from 16 November 2020 when the second bedroom became so damp and mouldly that it was no longer safe to use. That meant he could not have family and friends come to visit as he had been able to in the earlier part of his tenancy.
The landlord says the tenant did not inform her that the leak damage had gotten so bad that he could no longer use the second bedroom and stated that in the lease the tenant was expressly excluded from subletting the second bedroom.
The tenant rightly stated that he had not sub-let the second bedroom, and he was legally entitled to have friends and family come and stay with him from time to time. He was also legally entitled to have a boarder or a flatmate. The tenancy agreement expressly states that he is allowed to have a maximum of two people living in the premise.
The landlord also stated that she rented the premise to the tenant in August 2016 at $600 per week, put the rent up to $725.00 per week on 8 September 2017 and had not put the rent up thereafter because of the ongoing issues with the leak. She says she intentionally did not increase the rent while the elusive leak was located and remediated but had not appreciated the degree to which the tenant was suffering stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity as she was living overseas and the tenant had not constantly informed her of the growing leak related issues he was living with. She says had he alerted her in 2020 to the fact he could no longer use the second bedroom, she would have ended his tenancy and come back to New Zealand to expedite the identification of the cause of the leak and the remediation of the leak related damage.
The landlord was fully aware of the ongoing leak issues and that the tenant was living in damp and mouldy conditions for the majority of his tenancy. I do not accept that she would not have known that the water damage continued to grow until the cause of the leak was identified and fixed.
I am satisfied that the landlord breached her obligation to provide and maintain the premise in a reasonable state in all the circumstances and that the tenant had to live in damp and mouldy conditions during the majority of his tenant and that he should receive some compensation in recognition of the stress, loss of amenity and inconvenience he suffered, specifically the additional stress, loss of amenity and inconvenience he suffered after 16 November 2020 when the condition of the second bedroom became so bad that it was no longer safe to use. This was due to the risk to health caused by the extent of the water damage and the mouldy carpet and dampness in the room.
In assessing a fair level of compensation to award to the tenant for the losses suffered from 16 November 2020 to 19 June 2025 (when the leak related repairs were completed), I need to take into consideration the landlord having already given the tenant a rent reduction of sorts by not raising the rent at all since 8 September 2017. The rent has remained at $725.00 per week from that date onwards.
The tenant argued that that was in fact fair market rent for the premise, particularly in the poor condition it was in. He stated that it would not have been rentable to anyone for the period 16 November 2020 to 19 June 2025 in the condition it was in. Especially when it did not meet the healthy homes standards or the HIR. He claims that even now it has been fully remediated, it would not fetch more than $800.00 per week in the current market.
Tenancy Services market rent data for the period 1 December 2024 to 31 May 2025 shows the following rental rates for two-bedroom properties in [Suburb suppressed]: Data setLower quartile rent (per week) Median rent (per week) Upper quartile (per week) All rentals in area$641.00 $758.00$1,000.00 Two bedroom apartment $608.00 $680.00$738.00 Two bedroom flat$564.00 $595.00$620.00 Two bedroom house $640.00 $675.00$750.00
The landlord argued that her property has special characteristics that make it worth more by way of market rent that the majority of properties in [suburb suppressed]. She provided photographs that show this is a beach front property that has 180 degree views across [location suppressed] and extensive views of the [suburb suppressed] water front across to [suburb suppressed] and [location suppressed] from living, dining, kitchen and both bedrooms. In addition, the premise is fully furnished and contains art works and other such things. The landlord says these special characteristics add to the market rent this property could fetch. She states that even though the house had significant leaks for over 5 years, the market rent for the property would have been more than what she charged the tenant.
In support of the market rent argument, the landlord produced three rental listings for premises in close proximity to hers and that had the same or similar special characteristics. These properties were as follows: a. A one-bedroom apartment on [street name suppressed] advertised for $1,200.00 per week on 19 February 2019; b. A two-bedroom fully furnished apartment on [street name suppressed] listed for rent at $1,350.00 per week in July 2025; and c. A two-bedroom apartment on [street name suppressed] for rent at $1,800.00 per week in July 2025.
The tenant stated that these apartments are newer and have more modern décor and therefore attract higher rents. Further, that fully furnished apartments that contain belongings that are unique and require looking after carefully in a damp and mouldy apartment would decrease the market rental rate payable.
I find that the tenant should be awarded a rent rebate of $100.00 per week for the 239 week and 3-day period (16 November 2020 to 19 June 2025) he suffered the additional loss of amenity of the entire second bedroom and the increased levels of stress and inconvenience of the growing water damage related issues he had to live with. This rent rebate is in addition to any rent relief the tenant has had from not having any rent increase since September 2017. Based on the market data provided, my assessment is that the market rent for this property is in the vicinity of between $850.00 to $980.00 per week in the current rental market and that the tenant has had a rent reduction of between $50.00 to $255.00 a week during the period 16 November 2020 to 19 June 2025 by way of no rent increase.
Based on the above, I award the tenant compensation of $23,942.85 for the 239 week and 3-day period the tenant lived with an increased loss of amenity and increasing levels of stress and inconvenience because of the growing water damage related issues he had to live with. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

Should the tenancy be terminated?

As at 25 July 2025, the rent records prove the tenant was in $30,243.00 rent arrears. He had not paid his rent in full and on time, in breach of his statutory and contractual obligations.
Despite the equitable offset of $23,942.85 rent rebate awarded to him, the tenant still owed the landlord more than 21 days rent arrears on the date the landlord made her application to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy, being 23 May 2025.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy on 1 August 2028, being $7,017.29, after the tenant’s equitable offset.

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because both the tenant and the landlord have substantially succeeded with their claims, I must reimburse both filing fees. Name suppression
The landlord and the tenant apply for non-publication 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 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.
Both parties have substantially succeeded in these proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of either party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of both the tenant and the landlord’s names and identifying details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5272101 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5272101 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Should the tenancy be terminated?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Should the tenancy be terminated?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions