What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5282144 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord is to pay $27.00 to the tenant for reimbursement of the filing fee.

How much money was awarded in case 5282144?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5282144?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5282144?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12433320-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5282144 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord is to pay $27.00 to the tenant for reimbursement of the filing fee.

How much money was awarded in case 5282144?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5282144?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5282144?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12433320-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 36 Beulah Avenue, Rothesay Bay, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5282144 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5282144 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant applied for an order in relation to the landlord’s right of entry.

The landlord applied for an order providing landlord entry and for exemplary damages.

The tenancy began on 30 November 2024 and is for a fixed term due to end on 30 November 2025.

In early February 2025 there was a pipe leak which the tenant notified the landlord of. Repairs were carried out to the pipes but there was damage to the floor and the subfloor in the entranceway.

After assessment by insurers and quotes from builders the landlord proposed carrying out repairs to the area. The scope for the work increased beyond what was covered by the insurance company to include replacement of the flooring (by overlaying the current flooring) in the lounge, kitchen and dining area which adjoins the entranceway. Included in the work was also removal of the firebox which is in the lounge area. The decision to replace the flooring was because the builder advised it was not possible to accurately match the current flooring in the open plan space.

After the leak the landlord proposed ending the fixed term tenancy early and then decided to put the premises on the market for sale.

The property was on the market for sale at the beginning of June 2025 and sold at the end of June 2025. Settlement is to take place on 8 December 2025, a week after this tenancy ends.

Section 48(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides, The landlord may enter the premises – (d)for the purpose of carrying out necessary repairs to or necessary maintenance of, the premises, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry; or

The issue in this situation is whether the repairs are “necessary”. Necessary repairs include fixing anything that is broken or not functioning as it should and keeping the premises in a reasonable state of repair as required by the Act 1 . Also relevant is whether the repairs are required so as not to cause further damage to the property.

At the hearing the landlord said that the condition of the premises is getting worse.

The Tribunal heard by phone from a witness for the landlord, her builder, Tony Gamble from Absolute Building Solutions. Mr Gamble said that there was no risk in delaying the work because the leak was resolved and there is no further water ingress. He confirmed it was a cosmetic change but that there is a risk of mould growth but no evidence of this is apparent at this stage because if it was present, it would be under the flooring. Mr Gamble estimated that the area where the new flooring was to be overlaid was 50m². 1 Section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986

The leak occurred in early February 2025. The repairs (including the expanded scope of works) were planned to be carried out in June 2025. This four month delay is evidence that there was no urgency in relation to the repairs.

After the leak several people had attended at the tenancy including the landlord, a plumber, contractors to dry the premises, an insurance assessor and two builders. Then around the same time in relation to the sale of the property a real estate agent and a valuer attended as well as prospective purchasers who attended the six open homes held over three weekends.

The tenant complied with all these instances of landlord entry. At the time of the planned repairs the tenant asked whether the repairs could be carried out between 9am and 5pm. The landlord’s builder advised that he could only move the start time from 7.30am until 8am. I note that the Act 2 provides that the work must be carried out between 8am and 7pm.

The tenant then sent an email to the landlord advising that they did not want the floors to be done during the tenancy due to the scope of works, the timing and location in the house.

The situation deteriorated between the parties and the landlord issued the tenant with a 14-day notice. The landlord’s position is that she gave the tenant more than 24 hours’ notice of the planned repairs. The builder’s evidence is that the repairs could accommodate the tenant living at the premises. While that may be so, it still means that contractors are at the premises in the open plan kitchen, dining and lounge area carrying out repairs that are not urgent and the tenant, her husband and two young children would need to accommodate this by adjusting their lives from 8am (to up to 7pm) for a period of at least a week.

At the hearing the landlord acknowledged that the situation is different at the date of hearing (19 September 2025) than it was three months earlier in June. Since filing her application, the landlord has sold the property and allowed a week after the tenancy ends for the work to be carried out before settlement.

There is no condition in the sale and purchase agreement that the repairs are required but after the hearing ended the landlord provided the Tribunal with an unsigned disclosure document stating that the repairs will be carried out before settlement. That document does not change my view and this order.

Given that there is no evidence that the repairs are “necessary” or causing any further deterioration, the uncompensated inconvenience already suffered by the tenant and the time available to carry out the repairs before settlement, I see no reason for an order for the repairs to be carried out during this tenancy. 2 Section 48(2)(d) Residential Tenancies Act 1986

The landlord applied for exemplary damages in relation to the tenant not allowing the landlord to enter the premises, without reasonable excuse, in circumstances in which the landlord is entitled to enter 3 . The application of this unlawful act is also dependent on whether the repairs are necessary 4 .

For the reasons above I do not consider that the repairs are necessary. As the tenant has a reasonable excuse to not allow the landlord to enter the premises there is no unlawful act and therefore exemplary damages are not available.

I make no order in relation to landlord entry for the repairs or for exemplary damages.

Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5282144 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00