What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5309142 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 5309142?

Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5309142?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5309142?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12599863-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5309142 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 5309142?

Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5309142?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5309142?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12599863-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5309142 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5309142 — net $350.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain	$350.00		Failure to maintain
Repairs: Deck cleaning		$350.00	Repairs: Deck cleaning
Total award	$350.00	$350.00
Net award	$350.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$350.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of all names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.
The tenant has applied for the return of the bond and compensation for failures to maintain.
The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond for a deck repair.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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 the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.
This tenancy commenced 21 December 2023 and ended 21 June 2025. This was a new building, and some issues raised appear to relate to build defects that remained a responsibility of the builder towards the owner. That does not absolve the landlord from meeting its responsibilities, but it is a potential complication that needed additional management.

Did the landlord fail to maintain?

It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA 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, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.
Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to remedy several repair issues within a reasonable timeframe. I consider each issue in turn. Bathroom extractor fan
The tenants said that while it continued to appear to work, the internal shower room extractor fan lost about 90% of its effectiveness after several months use. This shower was typically used by the children, the owners having an ensuite with shower available.
The issue was raised but never resolved to the tenant’s satisfaction. The level of inspection by the builder was not clear with the tenant recounting inconsistent. The landlord stated the current tenants have not raised any concerns (although they have not been asked specifically). On balance, I consider the builder failed to appropriately inspect and remedy as required. Guttering overflow
As a new build, the overflowing of a section of guttering was unlikely to be from blockage. This was a problem from the start of the tenancy and the landlord was aware of it. The builder was told to return. The tenants stated he looked up at it but did not inspect. No further action was undertaken. The landlord stated they were not informed of the lack of remedial action after sending the builder. This was an ongoing issue, but I struggle to assess the impact on the tenants to be as significant as claimed by the tenants (“still slippery after 2-3 days”). The wooden stairs beneath the guttering were exposed to the elements and any subsequent leaking from flooded guttering after any rain stopped is not evidenced as being of long duration. That said, this is a further instance of a likely building defect not being addressed by the builder. Missing green waste bin
One was requested but no contracted obligation to provide one existed. However, the landlord paid for one but it was never delivered during this tenancy. It is at the premises now. There is no evidence of further advice from the tenant to the landlord after it rightly expected one to be delivered after payment. This claim is dismissed. Bedroom door not closing
This was an issue that the builder was to attend to. He did call at the premises to fix but this was outside of normal hours and without notice. The tenants declined access at that time and asked he reschedule. No further attempt to arrange entry for repair was made. This was a failure to maintain. Compensation
In Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993 (upheld in the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust, CIV-2018-009-002094 [2020] NZDC 17667) sets out the factors that the Tribunal should take into account when making a damages award, being: a. The nature of the breach b. The duration of the breach c. The effect of the breach.
The tenants sought $2,000.00 compensation.
None of the issues raised are considered of significant impact when considered against the three factors above. There was a need for the tenants to raise the issues and it appears there may have been tardiness from the builder in resolving. That is something beyond the tenant’s control. I consider there has been an impact on the tenant from the collective failures to maintain. I consider the sum of those to mirror the tenant liability for the deck repair, being $350.00. This is awarded for the three failures established.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The tenants had a BBQ on the back deck. Through use there was a legacy of oil or fat behind it that left a significant stain on the deck. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord sought $609.09. The repair was delayed until the weather was warmer. I was told it has now been completed at the cost as claimed.
The tenants accept liability but disputed the amount sought, believing there are costs sought beyond any specific repair.
I agree with the tenants. The invoice description notes an attempt to get the deck to “look as close as possible to original”. I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off.
In allowing for this here, I have taken into account the age and condition of the deck. I consider $350.00 to be a fair apportionment for tenant liability of the invoiced total. This is awarded. Filing fee
As both parties have had substantial success I leave each to carry their filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
Both parties requested suppression. As each has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5309142 — net $350.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain	$350.00		Failure to maintain
Repairs: Deck cleaning		$350.00	Repairs: Deck cleaning
Total award	$350.00	$350.00
Net award	$350.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$350.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of all names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.
The tenant has applied for the return of the bond and compensation for failures to maintain.
The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond for a deck repair.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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 the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.
This tenancy commenced 21 December 2023 and ended 21 June 2025. This was a new building, and some issues raised appear to relate to build defects that remained a responsibility of the builder towards the owner. That does not absolve the landlord from meeting its responsibilities, but it is a potential complication that needed additional management.

Did the landlord fail to maintain?

It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA 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, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.
Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to remedy several repair issues within a reasonable timeframe. I consider each issue in turn. Bathroom extractor fan
The tenants said that while it continued to appear to work, the internal shower room extractor fan lost about 90% of its effectiveness after several months use. This shower was typically used by the children, the owners having an ensuite with shower available.
The issue was raised but never resolved to the tenant’s satisfaction. The level of inspection by the builder was not clear with the tenant recounting inconsistent. The landlord stated the current tenants have not raised any concerns (although they have not been asked specifically). On balance, I consider the builder failed to appropriately inspect and remedy as required. Guttering overflow
As a new build, the overflowing of a section of guttering was unlikely to be from blockage. This was a problem from the start of the tenancy and the landlord was aware of it. The builder was told to return. The tenants stated he looked up at it but did not inspect. No further action was undertaken. The landlord stated they were not informed of the lack of remedial action after sending the builder. This was an ongoing issue, but I struggle to assess the impact on the tenants to be as significant as claimed by the tenants (“still slippery after 2-3 days”). The wooden stairs beneath the guttering were exposed to the elements and any subsequent leaking from flooded guttering after any rain stopped is not evidenced as being of long duration. That said, this is a further instance of a likely building defect not being addressed by the builder. Missing green waste bin
One was requested but no contracted obligation to provide one existed. However, the landlord paid for one but it was never delivered during this tenancy. It is at the premises now. There is no evidence of further advice from the tenant to the landlord after it rightly expected one to be delivered after payment. This claim is dismissed. Bedroom door not closing
This was an issue that the builder was to attend to. He did call at the premises to fix but this was outside of normal hours and without notice. The tenants declined access at that time and asked he reschedule. No further attempt to arrange entry for repair was made. This was a failure to maintain. Compensation
In Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993 (upheld in the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust, CIV-2018-009-002094 [2020] NZDC 17667) sets out the factors that the Tribunal should take into account when making a damages award, being: a. The nature of the breach b. The duration of the breach c. The effect of the breach.
The tenants sought $2,000.00 compensation.
None of the issues raised are considered of significant impact when considered against the three factors above. There was a need for the tenants to raise the issues and it appears there may have been tardiness from the builder in resolving. That is something beyond the tenant’s control. I consider there has been an impact on the tenant from the collective failures to maintain. I consider the sum of those to mirror the tenant liability for the deck repair, being $350.00. This is awarded for the three failures established.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The tenants had a BBQ on the back deck. Through use there was a legacy of oil or fat behind it that left a significant stain on the deck. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord sought $609.09. The repair was delayed until the weather was warmer. I was told it has now been completed at the cost as claimed.
The tenants accept liability but disputed the amount sought, believing there are costs sought beyond any specific repair.
I agree with the tenants. The invoice description notes an attempt to get the deck to “look as close as possible to original”. I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off.
In allowing for this here, I have taken into account the age and condition of the deck. I consider $350.00 to be a fair apportionment for tenant liability of the invoiced total. This is awarded. Filing fee
As both parties have had substantial success I leave each to carry their filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
Both parties requested suppression. As each has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5309142 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5309142 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions