What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5287521 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5287521?

Compensation: $2,214.29 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $124.75 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287521?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287521?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12586392-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5287521 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5287521?

Compensation: $2,214.29 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $124.75 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287521?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287521?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12586392-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

134A Ngapuhi Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5287521 — Mould & damp

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5287521. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – 20 days’ rent paid		$2,214.29	Compensation – 20 days’ rent paid
Compensation – 50 percent of power and wated		$124.75	Compensation – 50 percent of power and wated

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.
Twin Elm Property Management must pay [The tenant/s] $2,339.04 immediately. DescriptionTenant Compensation – 20 days’ rent paid $2,214.29 Compensation – 50 percent of power and wated$124.75 Total award$2,339.04

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing with a support person.
Richard Nelson attended the hearing for the landlord.
The tenant claims the landlord did not provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. She seeks return of rent paid and reimbursement of power and water paid.
I had considered amending the landlord’s details to be the landlord as agent for Bill Shaw Properties Limited, but I could not find that company’s name listed on the Companies Register or mentioned in any documents. The tenancy agreement names Twin Elm itself as the principal. Therefore, Twin Elm is the correct party for the purposes of this decision. Background
This is a case about a tenant who unwittingly entered into a tenancy for a property that almost immediately leaked (again).
The premises is an appealing looking three-bedroom house in a desirable location. Unfortunately, its handsome looks are deceiving. It was built in a substandard manner. Time has taken its toll. It is a leaky building, with historical and recurring weathertightness issues.
Mr Nelson says the owner is a builder. He intends to reclad or rebuild the building in a couple of years’ time. Indeed, the landlord has made no secret of that. In the Trade-Me advertisement for renting the property mentioned that the building “had a limited lifespan” and the owner “will reclad it in a couple of years”.
In summary, there was an explicit tension between the owner’s wish to defer maintenance as much as possible and the landlord’s obligation to ensure the premises is properly maintained.
The tenancy began on 19 May 2025. The tenant began dropping her belongings off to the house, but never fully moved in because on about 27 May, the tenant, to her dismay saw water dripping into the garage. A Yucca tree had grown into the deck and wall above the garage and water from the garden was leaking in.
The tenant informed the landlord of the leak. The landlord assured her the problem would be promptly addressed. However, the tenant was anxious that the house was unhealthy and would make her unwell. She had lived in a leaky house before and experienced chronic cold and breathing symptoms which she believed were caused by the leaky conditions. Also, the premises had several areas where the interior walls had been warped and damaged by water ingress. The landlord assured her that those were merely the signs of historic leaks. However, the tenant remained traumatised at the prospect of having to live in a home that would make her sick.
A few days later on 5 June 2025, the tenant told the landlord she wanted to move out. The tenancy being a periodic tenancy, the usual notice period was 21 days. She asked for earlier termination, which the landlord refused. The tenant consequently paid rent for the entire notice period as required.
The issues for determination are: a. Did the landlord breached the terms of the tenancy; and if so b. Whether the tenant was entitled to cancel the contract without giving the usual full notice period.

Did the landlord breach the tenancy contract?

Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1969 (RTA), landlords must provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) ... (b) 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...
The obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair is a term of any tenancy agreement that is implied even if it is not specifically stated.
The tenant’s photographs shoe that the water has leaked into the garage ceiling/living room floor cavity and that the leaking has probably been occurring for years. The photographs show rotten and rotting framework. The ceiling panels are crumbling in places like waterlogged toast. The blockwork below looks damp and mouldy. In one corner the living room floor looks (from beneath) to be soaked. In the garage, the damage is do bad that soil is visible along the wall, demonstrating that the garden has been built up directly against the cladding (an obvious recipe for disaster).
It is easy to be wise after the event. However, there were telltale signs even prior to this particularly bad leak that such leaking was inevitable. Namely, the large tree whose roots caused the leak was growing right against the house. The cladding behind it was cracked. The roots were growing under the deck and under the living room. Indeed, the landlord’s pulling out of the roots that were growing under the deck exacerbated the ongoing leak making it more evident.
The tenant (and indeed the landlord) did not become aware of the leak until about a week into the start of the tenancy, but the mould and decay in the garage’s roof cavity can only have developed over a considerable period of time. So, although the leak and its associate damage were hidden, they still existed and, moreover, the landlord’s attempt to prune the roots was a substandard repair of a problem that should have been attended to.
Therefore, the premises was not in a reasonable state of repair at the tenancy’s commencement.
It follows, the landlord was in breach of the contract.

Did the breach entitle the tenant to cancel the contract?

Under s 37 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 a party may cancel the contract if the other party breaches a term of the contract, and the breach substantially alters the benefit or burden of the contract to the cancelling party.
The leak into the living room floor/garage cavity revealed ongoing leaking that had been occurring for years. The building elements were damp, mouldy, and deteriorating. Allied to that were the previous repairs that appeared to have been carelessly done.
When the tenant gave evidence, she appeared to experience a retraumatising of how she was made to feel when faced with the dilemma of wanting to continue the tenancy but not sacrifice her health by having to live in a leaky home.
I am satisfied that the breach substantially reduced the benefit of the contract to the tenant cancelling party; substantially increased the burden of the tenant under the contract; and for the tenant made the benefits and burdens of the contract substantially different from that she contracted for.
Therefore, I find the breach entitled the tenant to cancel the contract.
The landlord accepted the tenant’s cancellation of the contract but only under the RTA’s usual notice provision which entitles tenants to terminate a tenancy after giving the landlord 21 days’ notice.
Under s 85(2) of the RTA, the Tribunal must determine cases according to the “substantial merits and justice of the case”. In the circumstances here, the substantial merits and justice require the tenant should be released from the tenancy immediately upon her giving notice.
Therefore, I find that the tenancy agreement was cancelled on 5 June 2025.
It follows from this finding, that the landlord must return 20 days’ rent.
I also order 50 percent of the power and water cost. The tenant cannot have used all of the power and water she paid for because she was hardly at the premises to use the utilities. It is likely the builders and other contractors used a substantial amount of the power and water she paid for. Non-publication
The tenant seeks non-publication of her name and identifying details.
Under s 95A(1) of the RTA, 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 her claim. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or justified by the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5287521. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – 20 days’ rent paid		$2,214.29	Compensation – 20 days’ rent paid
Compensation – 50 percent of power and wated		$124.75	Compensation – 50 percent of power and wated

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.
Twin Elm Property Management must pay [The tenant/s] $2,339.04 immediately. DescriptionTenant Compensation – 20 days’ rent paid $2,214.29 Compensation – 50 percent of power and wated$124.75 Total award$2,339.04

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing with a support person.
Richard Nelson attended the hearing for the landlord.
The tenant claims the landlord did not provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. She seeks return of rent paid and reimbursement of power and water paid.
I had considered amending the landlord’s details to be the landlord as agent for Bill Shaw Properties Limited, but I could not find that company’s name listed on the Companies Register or mentioned in any documents. The tenancy agreement names Twin Elm itself as the principal. Therefore, Twin Elm is the correct party for the purposes of this decision. Background
This is a case about a tenant who unwittingly entered into a tenancy for a property that almost immediately leaked (again).
The premises is an appealing looking three-bedroom house in a desirable location. Unfortunately, its handsome looks are deceiving. It was built in a substandard manner. Time has taken its toll. It is a leaky building, with historical and recurring weathertightness issues.
Mr Nelson says the owner is a builder. He intends to reclad or rebuild the building in a couple of years’ time. Indeed, the landlord has made no secret of that. In the Trade-Me advertisement for renting the property mentioned that the building “had a limited lifespan” and the owner “will reclad it in a couple of years”.
In summary, there was an explicit tension between the owner’s wish to defer maintenance as much as possible and the landlord’s obligation to ensure the premises is properly maintained.
The tenancy began on 19 May 2025. The tenant began dropping her belongings off to the house, but never fully moved in because on about 27 May, the tenant, to her dismay saw water dripping into the garage. A Yucca tree had grown into the deck and wall above the garage and water from the garden was leaking in.
The tenant informed the landlord of the leak. The landlord assured her the problem would be promptly addressed. However, the tenant was anxious that the house was unhealthy and would make her unwell. She had lived in a leaky house before and experienced chronic cold and breathing symptoms which she believed were caused by the leaky conditions. Also, the premises had several areas where the interior walls had been warped and damaged by water ingress. The landlord assured her that those were merely the signs of historic leaks. However, the tenant remained traumatised at the prospect of having to live in a home that would make her sick.
A few days later on 5 June 2025, the tenant told the landlord she wanted to move out. The tenancy being a periodic tenancy, the usual notice period was 21 days. She asked for earlier termination, which the landlord refused. The tenant consequently paid rent for the entire notice period as required.
The issues for determination are: a. Did the landlord breached the terms of the tenancy; and if so b. Whether the tenant was entitled to cancel the contract without giving the usual full notice period.

Did the landlord breach the tenancy contract?

Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1969 (RTA), landlords must provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) ... (b) 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...
The obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair is a term of any tenancy agreement that is implied even if it is not specifically stated.
The tenant’s photographs shoe that the water has leaked into the garage ceiling/living room floor cavity and that the leaking has probably been occurring for years. The photographs show rotten and rotting framework. The ceiling panels are crumbling in places like waterlogged toast. The blockwork below looks damp and mouldy. In one corner the living room floor looks (from beneath) to be soaked. In the garage, the damage is do bad that soil is visible along the wall, demonstrating that the garden has been built up directly against the cladding (an obvious recipe for disaster).
It is easy to be wise after the event. However, there were telltale signs even prior to this particularly bad leak that such leaking was inevitable. Namely, the large tree whose roots caused the leak was growing right against the house. The cladding behind it was cracked. The roots were growing under the deck and under the living room. Indeed, the landlord’s pulling out of the roots that were growing under the deck exacerbated the ongoing leak making it more evident.
The tenant (and indeed the landlord) did not become aware of the leak until about a week into the start of the tenancy, but the mould and decay in the garage’s roof cavity can only have developed over a considerable period of time. So, although the leak and its associate damage were hidden, they still existed and, moreover, the landlord’s attempt to prune the roots was a substandard repair of a problem that should have been attended to.
Therefore, the premises was not in a reasonable state of repair at the tenancy’s commencement.
It follows, the landlord was in breach of the contract.

Did the breach entitle the tenant to cancel the contract?

Under s 37 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 a party may cancel the contract if the other party breaches a term of the contract, and the breach substantially alters the benefit or burden of the contract to the cancelling party.
The leak into the living room floor/garage cavity revealed ongoing leaking that had been occurring for years. The building elements were damp, mouldy, and deteriorating. Allied to that were the previous repairs that appeared to have been carelessly done.
When the tenant gave evidence, she appeared to experience a retraumatising of how she was made to feel when faced with the dilemma of wanting to continue the tenancy but not sacrifice her health by having to live in a leaky home.
I am satisfied that the breach substantially reduced the benefit of the contract to the tenant cancelling party; substantially increased the burden of the tenant under the contract; and for the tenant made the benefits and burdens of the contract substantially different from that she contracted for.
Therefore, I find the breach entitled the tenant to cancel the contract.
The landlord accepted the tenant’s cancellation of the contract but only under the RTA’s usual notice provision which entitles tenants to terminate a tenancy after giving the landlord 21 days’ notice.
Under s 85(2) of the RTA, the Tribunal must determine cases according to the “substantial merits and justice of the case”. In the circumstances here, the substantial merits and justice require the tenant should be released from the tenancy immediately upon her giving notice.
Therefore, I find that the tenancy agreement was cancelled on 5 June 2025.
It follows from this finding, that the landlord must return 20 days’ rent.
I also order 50 percent of the power and water cost. The tenant cannot have used all of the power and water she paid for because she was hardly at the premises to use the utilities. It is likely the builders and other contractors used a substantial amount of the power and water she paid for. Non-publication
The tenant seeks non-publication of her name and identifying details.
Under s 95A(1) of the RTA, 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 her claim. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or justified by the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287521 — Mould & damp at 134A Ngapuhi Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287521 — Mould & damp at 134A Ngapuhi Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach the tenancy contract?

Did the breach entitle the tenant to cancel the contract?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach the tenancy contract?

Did the breach entitle the tenant to cancel the contract?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions