What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5315901 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 5315901?

Compensation: Loss of enjoyment x 40…: $6,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5315901?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5315901?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13040123-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5315901 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 5315901?

Compensation: Loss of enjoyment x 40…: $6,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5315901?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5315901?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13040123-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 3, 68 Gladstone Road, Northcote, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5315901 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5315901 — net $6,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of enjoyment x 40 weeks	$6,000.00	h the rent reduction already given by the landlord. I order the landlord to pay $6,000.00 to the tenant as way of compensation for the loss of full use and enj…
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,028.00
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,028.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names of both parties. The address itself is not suppressed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $6,028.00 immediately as per below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 15 December 2025.
The tenancy was for a fixed term of 2 years starting from 3 June 2023. The tenancy ended on 9 August 2025.
The premises was the downstairs self-contained unit of a main house. It was fully renovated in February 2023.
The weekly rent was $550.00 per week.
The tenant applied for compensation for the premises being leaky, full refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Compensation for leaky building
Under section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety and comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”).
Regulation 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 requires every house to be free from dampness.
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 RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
At the hearing, evidence from both parties were heard and email correspondence were looked at along with the work done by the landlord in response.
The premises had issues including the exhaust fan not working properly in the bathroom and the kitchen for 2.5 months, the power points not working in the bathroom and the toilet for 2 weeks, some lights not working, hall glass having been broken and other non-major issues.
The landlord had filled and sealed exterior cracks, reinstated window frames, installed bathroom fan and rangehood, sealed windows, sent an electrician to check MCB tripping, reinstated blinds, architrave reinstated, dried the premises post-leak, installed extra flushing tape and waterproof membrane, resealed mortar, installed double thickness timber framing, tried expanding foam and regularly inspected the premises.
The biggest issue for the tenant in bringing a claim to the Tribunal was the rain leaking inside the premises.
Despite, the landlord attempting to fix the leak, in the end, the leak could not be completely fixed as the issue was with the concrete beam structure. It seems that fixing it on one place made the leak appear somewhere else. The tenant had to vacate the premises to allow for it to be fixed completely.
There were three distinct periods of leaking.
The first period was from 26 June 2023 to 24 November 2023. This was to do with the water leaking into the master bedroom.
From 24 November 2023, there were no further reports of leaking until 3 October 2024. The living room window leaked and the tenant was told that the entire wall needed to be replaced and re-sealed. It was fixed on 10 December 2024.
Then from 4 March 2025 until 30 April 2025, water leaked again in the living room, through the door and the kitchen window.
The landlord had compensated the tenant $900.00 by way of a rent reduction from 1 May 2025 to 26 June 2025. Rent was reduced by $50.00 per week from 27 June 2025 until the end of the tenancy.
From as early as 26 June 2023, the tenant reported the water leak issue to the landlord. The tenant had asked for the fixed-term tenancy to be converted to periodic tenancy from September 2023, but the landlord did not agree to it.
The tenant was new to New Zealand and felt obligated to stay the full term of the tenancy.
The tenant diligently and politely contacted the landlord throughout the tenancy regarding leaking and other maintenance issues.
Having seen the videos and photos of the leak, I find that it would have been impossible to fully enjoy the premises when it leaked. The leak was significant and the post-leak clean up and dehumidifying would have been burdensome for the tenant.
The tenant did all the tenant could by informing the landlord and following up with the repair requests as necessary. The tenant asked to be given the opportunity to exit the fixed-term tenancy earlier but was denied. Effectively, the tenant had been stuck in a 2-year fixed term tenancy living in a leaky and damp environment.
The premises was far from meeting a safe and dry environment HHS and other regulations had hoped to achieve for tenants.
The three periods of leaking totalled almost 40 weeks. I find that a rent reduction of $150.00 per week would be reasonable given the severity of the leak.
There is no overlap of that period with the rent reduction already given by the landlord. I order the landlord to pay $6,000.00 to the tenant as way of compensation for the loss of full use and enjoyment of the premises.
Although I find that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard, I do not find that it was intentional. The landlord had attended to the issues when raised. I do not find that exemplary damages should be granted. Refund of the bond
As there was no claim lodged by the landlord against the bond, the bond must be refunded in full to the tenant. Filing fee reimbursement
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5315901 — net $6,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of enjoyment x 40 weeks	$6,000.00	h the rent reduction already given by the landlord. I order the landlord to pay $6,000.00 to the tenant as way of compensation for the loss of full use and enj…
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,028.00
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,028.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names of both parties. The address itself is not suppressed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $6,028.00 immediately as per below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 15 December 2025.
The tenancy was for a fixed term of 2 years starting from 3 June 2023. The tenancy ended on 9 August 2025.
The premises was the downstairs self-contained unit of a main house. It was fully renovated in February 2023.
The weekly rent was $550.00 per week.
The tenant applied for compensation for the premises being leaky, full refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Compensation for leaky building
Under section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety and comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”).
Regulation 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 requires every house to be free from dampness.
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 RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
At the hearing, evidence from both parties were heard and email correspondence were looked at along with the work done by the landlord in response.
The premises had issues including the exhaust fan not working properly in the bathroom and the kitchen for 2.5 months, the power points not working in the bathroom and the toilet for 2 weeks, some lights not working, hall glass having been broken and other non-major issues.
The landlord had filled and sealed exterior cracks, reinstated window frames, installed bathroom fan and rangehood, sealed windows, sent an electrician to check MCB tripping, reinstated blinds, architrave reinstated, dried the premises post-leak, installed extra flushing tape and waterproof membrane, resealed mortar, installed double thickness timber framing, tried expanding foam and regularly inspected the premises.
The biggest issue for the tenant in bringing a claim to the Tribunal was the rain leaking inside the premises.
Despite, the landlord attempting to fix the leak, in the end, the leak could not be completely fixed as the issue was with the concrete beam structure. It seems that fixing it on one place made the leak appear somewhere else. The tenant had to vacate the premises to allow for it to be fixed completely.
There were three distinct periods of leaking.
The first period was from 26 June 2023 to 24 November 2023. This was to do with the water leaking into the master bedroom.
From 24 November 2023, there were no further reports of leaking until 3 October 2024. The living room window leaked and the tenant was told that the entire wall needed to be replaced and re-sealed. It was fixed on 10 December 2024.
Then from 4 March 2025 until 30 April 2025, water leaked again in the living room, through the door and the kitchen window.
The landlord had compensated the tenant $900.00 by way of a rent reduction from 1 May 2025 to 26 June 2025. Rent was reduced by $50.00 per week from 27 June 2025 until the end of the tenancy.
From as early as 26 June 2023, the tenant reported the water leak issue to the landlord. The tenant had asked for the fixed-term tenancy to be converted to periodic tenancy from September 2023, but the landlord did not agree to it.
The tenant was new to New Zealand and felt obligated to stay the full term of the tenancy.
The tenant diligently and politely contacted the landlord throughout the tenancy regarding leaking and other maintenance issues.
Having seen the videos and photos of the leak, I find that it would have been impossible to fully enjoy the premises when it leaked. The leak was significant and the post-leak clean up and dehumidifying would have been burdensome for the tenant.
The tenant did all the tenant could by informing the landlord and following up with the repair requests as necessary. The tenant asked to be given the opportunity to exit the fixed-term tenancy earlier but was denied. Effectively, the tenant had been stuck in a 2-year fixed term tenancy living in a leaky and damp environment.
The premises was far from meeting a safe and dry environment HHS and other regulations had hoped to achieve for tenants.
The three periods of leaking totalled almost 40 weeks. I find that a rent reduction of $150.00 per week would be reasonable given the severity of the leak.
There is no overlap of that period with the rent reduction already given by the landlord. I order the landlord to pay $6,000.00 to the tenant as way of compensation for the loss of full use and enjoyment of the premises.
Although I find that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard, I do not find that it was intentional. The landlord had attended to the issues when raised. I do not find that exemplary damages should be granted. Refund of the bond
As there was no claim lodged by the landlord against the bond, the bond must be refunded in full to the tenant. Filing fee reimbursement
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5315901 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 68 Gladstone Road, Northcote, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5315901 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 68 Gladstone Road, Northcote, Auckland

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