What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5301557 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 5301557?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $2,300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301557?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301557?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12984365-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5301557 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 5301557?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $2,300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301557?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301557?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12984365-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5301557 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5301557 — net $2,328.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$2,300.00	Loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,328.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,328.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant names and identifying details.
Fast Rental Limited must pay [the tenants] the amount of $2,328.00, as set out in the table below, immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants applied for a work order and a part rent refund for a breach of landlord obligations. Background
The tenants moved into the property on 4 May 2018. The tenancy is ongoing.
The premises consist of a 4-bedroom house. The tenants live there with their son and a flatmate.
The tenants sought a work order in respect of mould and flaking paint in several areas of the house.
There has been a lot of communication between the parties by text and email. Both have provided documentary evidence and submissions.
I heard oral evidence from the parties today. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Issues
On the tenant’s application the issues to be determined are these:
Did the landlord fail to repair and maintain the premises and therefore breach his obligations under section 45 (1) (b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986?
Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation for loss of amenity? Statutory Provisions
Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1969 (RTA), landlords must maintain 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...
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may order exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00: s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 1 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A 1 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. Footnotes not included except for see n 5 landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: 2 “...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 might be...”
Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 3 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation... The facts
The parties last appeared on 17 October 2025. The tenants were seeking a work order in respect of mould, urgent repairs and garden (tree) maintenance. The work order was issued, and the balance of the application adjourned to today.
The tenants confirmed that the painting and mould issues have now been attended to. The overgrown garden was also attended to on 12 January 2026.
The landlord explained that they have not attended to the ventilation assessment purely because they wish to wait until closer to winter where it will be easier to assess for dampness.
The landlord advised during the hearing that on 12 January 2026 a builder attended the property. They say he checked the ceiling paint and climbed into the ceiling cavity. He confirmed that this is the same building company who also attended and repaired the paint work on 12 August 2025. The landlord provided a paid invoice for the work undertaken.
The tenants say that it is the south facing bedroom which had the mould issues. The tenants also say that mould was present in the dining room, hallway and two bedrooms.
The tenants seek compensation in respect of the problems with mould and peeling paint. They say that it has taken far too long to get the issues sorted. They seek a small rent refund to cover the period of 8 weeks where they say that they could not use one of the bedrooms.
The tenants provided a timeline and evidence of communications between the parties as early as 2019. 2 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 3 See n 4
According to the tenants’ timeline there was reoccurring mould in the back room in April 2019.
In November 2021 there were emails, messages and photographs. They also say the scotia completely fell off. There was mould everywhere and the back room vacant for months.
Emails and messages were also sent on 9 May 2025, 4 July 2025, 17 July 2025 and 31 July 2025. The tenants say there was no structured approach on how to deal with the issue. They say at one stage the mould was painted over.
The tenants provided photographic evidence from July 2019 showing mould and flaking paintwork around various parts of the ceiling in the hallway, front living room and back bedroom. The photographs also clearly show the scotia separated from the ceiling in the back bedroom.
Photographs from June 2025 clearly showed flaking paintwork and cracks in the master bedroom.
Photographs from 4 July 2025 clearly show mould on various parts of the ceilings.
I have also sighted text messages from the tenant to the landlord in respect of various maintenance issues. A text message dated 12 June 2024 highlights the tenants’ frustration at the difficulty having repairs carried out on a broken toilet. The tenants also expressed their frustration at the lack of communication from the landlord. Discussion
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must: • provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
Breaching any of 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) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Loss of amenity
The tenants seek compensation in the form of a part rent refund for loss of amenity. They do not seek exemplary damages for failing to maintain.
I accept that the tenants suffered loss of amenity due to the landlord’s failure to attend to the mould and painting issues. They had to deal with not being able to use one of the bedrooms and became increasingly frustrated and annoyed by the landlord’s failure to proactively resolve what was obviously a landlord duty.
The tenants’ anger was palpable as evidenced by the correspondence provided.
The tenant’s claim for breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations is established.
The evidence clearly establishes that flaking paint on the interior walls and mould on some ceilings first appeared as early as 2019, and that the landlord was notified of these issues on numerous occasions.
Despite these notifications, the landlord did not take active and proper steps to repair the damage until 12 August 2025.
Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires the landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The delay in addressing the flaking paint and mould constitutes a failure to comply with this obligation. As a result, the tenant was unable to use one of the four bedrooms for a period of at least 8 weeks.
Further, the tenants have spent considerable time and effort pursuing the landlord to have the issues remedied resulting in a great deal of stress and inconvenience.
The tenants’ claim for a partial rent refund is allowed and calculated by the tenants as one quarter of the weekly rent ($1,150.00 ÷ 4 = $287.50) for 8 weeks, totalling $2,300.00.
I find that the amount claimed is reasonable in all the circumstances.
Accordingly, the tenant’s claim is established.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The tenants applied for a name suppression order. The tenants are entitled to name suppression as the application is successful.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5301557 — net $2,328.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$2,300.00	Loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,328.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,328.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant names and identifying details.
Fast Rental Limited must pay [the tenants] the amount of $2,328.00, as set out in the table below, immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants applied for a work order and a part rent refund for a breach of landlord obligations. Background
The tenants moved into the property on 4 May 2018. The tenancy is ongoing.
The premises consist of a 4-bedroom house. The tenants live there with their son and a flatmate.
The tenants sought a work order in respect of mould and flaking paint in several areas of the house.
There has been a lot of communication between the parties by text and email. Both have provided documentary evidence and submissions.
I heard oral evidence from the parties today. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Issues
On the tenant’s application the issues to be determined are these:
Did the landlord fail to repair and maintain the premises and therefore breach his obligations under section 45 (1) (b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986?
Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation for loss of amenity? Statutory Provisions
Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1969 (RTA), landlords must maintain 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...
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may order exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00: s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 1 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A 1 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. Footnotes not included except for see n 5 landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: 2 “...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 might be...”
Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 3 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation... The facts
The parties last appeared on 17 October 2025. The tenants were seeking a work order in respect of mould, urgent repairs and garden (tree) maintenance. The work order was issued, and the balance of the application adjourned to today.
The tenants confirmed that the painting and mould issues have now been attended to. The overgrown garden was also attended to on 12 January 2026.
The landlord explained that they have not attended to the ventilation assessment purely because they wish to wait until closer to winter where it will be easier to assess for dampness.
The landlord advised during the hearing that on 12 January 2026 a builder attended the property. They say he checked the ceiling paint and climbed into the ceiling cavity. He confirmed that this is the same building company who also attended and repaired the paint work on 12 August 2025. The landlord provided a paid invoice for the work undertaken.
The tenants say that it is the south facing bedroom which had the mould issues. The tenants also say that mould was present in the dining room, hallway and two bedrooms.
The tenants seek compensation in respect of the problems with mould and peeling paint. They say that it has taken far too long to get the issues sorted. They seek a small rent refund to cover the period of 8 weeks where they say that they could not use one of the bedrooms.
The tenants provided a timeline and evidence of communications between the parties as early as 2019. 2 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 3 See n 4
According to the tenants’ timeline there was reoccurring mould in the back room in April 2019.
In November 2021 there were emails, messages and photographs. They also say the scotia completely fell off. There was mould everywhere and the back room vacant for months.
Emails and messages were also sent on 9 May 2025, 4 July 2025, 17 July 2025 and 31 July 2025. The tenants say there was no structured approach on how to deal with the issue. They say at one stage the mould was painted over.
The tenants provided photographic evidence from July 2019 showing mould and flaking paintwork around various parts of the ceiling in the hallway, front living room and back bedroom. The photographs also clearly show the scotia separated from the ceiling in the back bedroom.
Photographs from June 2025 clearly showed flaking paintwork and cracks in the master bedroom.
Photographs from 4 July 2025 clearly show mould on various parts of the ceilings.
I have also sighted text messages from the tenant to the landlord in respect of various maintenance issues. A text message dated 12 June 2024 highlights the tenants’ frustration at the difficulty having repairs carried out on a broken toilet. The tenants also expressed their frustration at the lack of communication from the landlord. Discussion
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must: • provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
Breaching any of 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) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Loss of amenity
The tenants seek compensation in the form of a part rent refund for loss of amenity. They do not seek exemplary damages for failing to maintain.
I accept that the tenants suffered loss of amenity due to the landlord’s failure to attend to the mould and painting issues. They had to deal with not being able to use one of the bedrooms and became increasingly frustrated and annoyed by the landlord’s failure to proactively resolve what was obviously a landlord duty.
The tenants’ anger was palpable as evidenced by the correspondence provided.
The tenant’s claim for breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations is established.
The evidence clearly establishes that flaking paint on the interior walls and mould on some ceilings first appeared as early as 2019, and that the landlord was notified of these issues on numerous occasions.
Despite these notifications, the landlord did not take active and proper steps to repair the damage until 12 August 2025.
Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires the landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The delay in addressing the flaking paint and mould constitutes a failure to comply with this obligation. As a result, the tenant was unable to use one of the four bedrooms for a period of at least 8 weeks.
Further, the tenants have spent considerable time and effort pursuing the landlord to have the issues remedied resulting in a great deal of stress and inconvenience.
The tenants’ claim for a partial rent refund is allowed and calculated by the tenants as one quarter of the weekly rent ($1,150.00 ÷ 4 = $287.50) for 8 weeks, totalling $2,300.00.
I find that the amount claimed is reasonable in all the circumstances.
Accordingly, the tenant’s claim is established.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The tenants applied for a name suppression order. The tenants are entitled to name suppression as the application is successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301557 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301557 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions