What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5284139 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 5284139?

Compensation: Failure to maintain- h…: $1,378.57 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $128.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5284139?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5284139?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12640206-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5284139 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 5284139?

Compensation: Failure to maintain- h…: $1,378.57 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $128.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5284139?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5284139?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12640206-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5284139 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5284139 — net $1,250.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 June 2025	$128.57		Rent arrears to 1 June 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Failure to maintain- hot water		$1,378.57	Failure to maintain- hot water
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$155.57	$1,405.57
Net award		$1,250.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,250.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Uno Property Management Limited As Agent For Lucas & Maggie Investments Ltd must pay [The tenant] $1,250.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 30 October 2025.
The tenant applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenant confirmed he has already received full refund of his bond and withdraws this claim.
The landlord made a cross application for rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. 5284139, 53532832 5284139, 53532833

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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 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. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant gave termination notice to the landlord by email at around 6pm on Friday 9 May 2025. The tenants says that 21 days from that date is 30 May 2025 and that he should not be required to pay rent to 1 June 2026.
Section 136(8) of the RTA states: “If any document is transmitted to an electronic address in accordance with this section after 5 pm on any day, it is to be treated, in the absence of evidence to 5284139, 53532834 the contrary, as having been given or served on the next working day after the date on which it was transmitted”.
Therefore, the tenancy ended on 1 June 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is $128.57. TENANT’S CLAIMS Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b) obligations to the tenant?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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 .
Breaching this s45(1)(b) obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 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 tenants. 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]. 5284139, 53532835 Failure to maintain
The tenant gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances.
The tenant claimed about three weeks into the tenancy he raised the issue of having had no access to hot water in the premise from the commencement of his tenancy on 5 October 2024 during the first routine property inspection.
The property manager confirmed the first routine property inspection was carried out on 20 November 2024. The tenant had no evidence to disprove this date. The landlord did not have a copy of the inspection report, but did have a copy of the photographs from that inspection, which were dated 20 November 2024. I am satisfied that this was the date the inspection took place.
The property manager confirmed that he had not carried out this inspection and that the person who had not passed this issue on to the property manager. He confirmed the issue was noted in the inspection report, which he had access to, but also confirmed he relies on the person undertaking the inspection to bring any repair or maintenance issues to him so he can arrange to have them investigated and remediated in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances. Further, he states that had the tenant followed this issue up with him he would have taken steps immediately to resolve the issue.
I confirmed the tenant had raised the issue with a representative of the landlord on 20 November 2024 and was under no obligation to keep raising this issue with it.
I am satisfied the tenant first made the landlord aware he had no access to hot water on 20 November 2024 and that 27 weeks and 4 days later, at the end of his tenancy (1 June 2025) the issue had not been investigated or remediated.
I find the landlord failed to investigate and remediate the hot water issue in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances and that the tenant should receive a rent rebate of $50.00 per week for the period of 27 weeks and 4 days (20 November 2024 to 1 June 2025) as he has suffered the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience of not having access to hot water for his showers and dishes etc, being a rent rebate of $1378.57
The tenant has not applied for exemplary damages, so this remedy has not been considered. 5284139, 53532836

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of filing fees

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 the landlord has wholly succeeded with its claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with his claim, I have also reimbursed the filing fee. Name Suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of his name 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.
The tenant has substantially succeeded in his proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5284139 — net $1,250.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 June 2025	$128.57		Rent arrears to 1 June 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Failure to maintain- hot water		$1,378.57	Failure to maintain- hot water
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$155.57	$1,405.57
Net award		$1,250.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,250.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Uno Property Management Limited As Agent For Lucas & Maggie Investments Ltd must pay [The tenant] $1,250.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 30 October 2025.
The tenant applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenant confirmed he has already received full refund of his bond and withdraws this claim.
The landlord made a cross application for rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. 5284139, 53532832 5284139, 53532833

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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 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. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant gave termination notice to the landlord by email at around 6pm on Friday 9 May 2025. The tenants says that 21 days from that date is 30 May 2025 and that he should not be required to pay rent to 1 June 2026.
Section 136(8) of the RTA states: “If any document is transmitted to an electronic address in accordance with this section after 5 pm on any day, it is to be treated, in the absence of evidence to 5284139, 53532834 the contrary, as having been given or served on the next working day after the date on which it was transmitted”.
Therefore, the tenancy ended on 1 June 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is $128.57. TENANT’S CLAIMS Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b) obligations to the tenant?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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 .
Breaching this s45(1)(b) obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 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 tenants. 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]. 5284139, 53532835 Failure to maintain
The tenant gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances.
The tenant claimed about three weeks into the tenancy he raised the issue of having had no access to hot water in the premise from the commencement of his tenancy on 5 October 2024 during the first routine property inspection.
The property manager confirmed the first routine property inspection was carried out on 20 November 2024. The tenant had no evidence to disprove this date. The landlord did not have a copy of the inspection report, but did have a copy of the photographs from that inspection, which were dated 20 November 2024. I am satisfied that this was the date the inspection took place.
The property manager confirmed that he had not carried out this inspection and that the person who had not passed this issue on to the property manager. He confirmed the issue was noted in the inspection report, which he had access to, but also confirmed he relies on the person undertaking the inspection to bring any repair or maintenance issues to him so he can arrange to have them investigated and remediated in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances. Further, he states that had the tenant followed this issue up with him he would have taken steps immediately to resolve the issue.
I confirmed the tenant had raised the issue with a representative of the landlord on 20 November 2024 and was under no obligation to keep raising this issue with it.
I am satisfied the tenant first made the landlord aware he had no access to hot water on 20 November 2024 and that 27 weeks and 4 days later, at the end of his tenancy (1 June 2025) the issue had not been investigated or remediated.
I find the landlord failed to investigate and remediate the hot water issue in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances and that the tenant should receive a rent rebate of $50.00 per week for the period of 27 weeks and 4 days (20 November 2024 to 1 June 2025) as he has suffered the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience of not having access to hot water for his showers and dishes etc, being a rent rebate of $1378.57
The tenant has not applied for exemplary damages, so this remedy has not been considered. 5284139, 53532836

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of filing fees

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 the landlord has wholly succeeded with its claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with his claim, I have also reimbursed the filing fee. Name Suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of his name 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.
The tenant has substantially succeeded in his proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5284139 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5284139 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for rent?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for rent?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions