What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317912 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 5317912?

Compensation: Failure to maintain (r…: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain (r…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317912?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317912?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12881756-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317912 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 5317912?

Compensation: Failure to maintain (r…: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain (r…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317912?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317912?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12881756-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

117A Pah Road, Royal Oak, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5317912 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5317912 — net $3,228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain (roof	$500.00	30. The tenant seeks compensation.
Compensation: Failure to maintain (recurring condensation	$2,000.00	42. The tenant seeks compensation.
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$700.00	47. Considering these factors, I order the landlord to pay $700.00 in exemplary damages.
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,228.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,228.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5317912 — net $3,228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain (roof	$500.00	30. The tenant seeks compensation.
Compensation: Failure to maintain (recurring condensation	$2,000.00	42. The tenant seeks compensation.
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$700.00	47. Considering these factors, I order the landlord to pay $700.00 in exemplary damages.
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,228.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,228.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Ihome Property Management Limited As Agent For Fang Lu must pay [The tenant/s] $3,228.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which took place over two days on 1 October 2025 and 25 November 2025.
A lot of evidence was given at the first hearing. This decision may not refer to everything however, the parties can be assured I have considered all evidence and submissions as part of this decision.
The tenants are university students. On 20 January 2025, they entered into a periodic tenancy with the landlord for the premises at 117A Pah Rd, Royal Oak, Auckland 1023. The tenant claims the roof leaked in the kitchen and lounge. The tenant claims the repair completed was inadequate and they experienced recurring dampness on the ceiling as a result. The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages. The sole issue I must determine is whether the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 1
Before determining this issue, I discuss some general legal principles that apply to this case.

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Standard of proof

As the applicant, the tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1)(b). Compensation & Exemplary Damages: The law generally
Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy. Relevant factors as to quantum are: 2 • The nature of the breach. • The duration of the breach. • The effect of the breach on the other party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and deter. They are like a fine. Under the RTA, exemplary damages may be ordered for certain unlawful acts. The Tribunal must determine the unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just to order exemplary damages. Relevant factors are: 3 a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first been served on the tenant. The District Court held: 4
Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
The District Court accepted the unlawful entry was made in error and on that basis there was no intention established. Therefore, exemplary damages could not be ordered. 2 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 109(3). 4 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 TENANT’S CLAIMS

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

The law

Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires a landlord to 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.
It is well settled that a landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and fix it. 5
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 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. 6 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 7
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 8
I find the landlord failed to investigate and remedy the leaking roof and recurring condensation within a reasonable timeframe. I discuss each issue below. Roof Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the roof leaked in the lounge on 8 June 2025 and kitchen on 29 July 2025. The landlord attempted repairs after each instance however, the tenant claims the repairs were inadequate. This because the tenant continued to experience large wet patches on the ceiling in various areas of the house, especially the hallway above the stairs and upstairs bedrooms. The tenant claims the wet patches are a result of the poor repair to the leaking roof. 5 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 6 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 7 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 8 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
The landlord claims they acted quickly to investigate and repair the leaking roof. The landlord claims the repairs were effective and the wet patches on the ceiling are not from the leaking roof. Analysis
The tenant reported a leak in the roof to the landlord on 8 June 2025. The leak was in the downstairs lounge and water stained the tenant’s couch. Photographs and a video of the leak were submitted.
The landlord gave evidence a tradesperson visited the premises on 10 June 2025 and repaired the leak. The landlord referred to this person as “Mr Zhou.” The landlord also gave evidence that two other tradespeople visited the premises and attended to the roof. They were, John Zhang (this is a different John Zhang than the John Zhang from Brotherteam House Maintain Ltd) on 14 July 2025 and Peter Zhang on 22 July 2025.
On 29 July 2025, the tenant reported another leak in the roof in the kitchen. Photographs and videos of this leak were also submitted.
The landlord responded quickly to the first leak in the lounge however, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that an inadequate repair was completed at this time. This is for two reasons. First, the second leak occurred in the kitchen only 7 weeks later. The kitchen, dining and living areas are open plan and on the same level. The condition of the entire roof should have been assessed, not just the area that was leaking. The fact that a second leak occurred only 7 weeks later, convinces me on the balance of probabilities that this was not done. Secondly, there is a lack of evidence regarding the first repair. The landlord was unable to provide the full name of the first tradesperson who visited the premises. The landlord was unable to provide confirmation of the credentials for any of the tradespeople who attended the premises on 10 June 2025, 14 July 2025 and 22 July 2025. No invoices were submitted either. This lack of evidence, together with the fact the roof leaked in a nearby area only 7 weeks later, convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the attempted repairs for the first leak were inadequate.
The landlord sent a different tradesperson, John Zhang from Brotherteam House Maintain Ltd, to repair the leak in the roof in the kitchen on 5 August 2025. Mr Zhang needed to return to the premises on 8 August 2025 to complete the repair, because the roof continued leaking after his visit. The landlord submitted a report from Mr Zhang, which states the leak in the kitchen was fixed on 8 August 2025.
At the first hearing on 1 October 2025, the tenant gave evidence that they believed the roof was still leaking, because they were experiencing recurring wet patches on the ceiling. The tenant also gave evidence that they spoke to one of the contractors the landlord sent who advised them the entire roof needed replacing. The tenant suspected the landlord of ignoring this advice and hiring another contractor, because of the likely cost involved in replacing the roof.
I adjourned the hearing and required the landlord to have the roof assessed by a Licensed Building Practitioner (LBP) to confirm whether there was a leak in the roof. The landlord submitted a report from Liu Li of Rfperfect Roofing Ltd dated 19 October 2025. Mr Li is a registered LBP. The report confirms the condition of the roof is generally sound and no high water meter readings were detected inside the premises. The report states that the likelihood of the roof leaking is small.
I accept the contents of the report and find the roof is most likely not leaking. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the leaking roof was properly repaired on 8 August 2025 when Mr Zhang visited the premises.
There is a delay of approximately 8.5 weeks between 8 June 2025, which is the date the tenant first reported the leaking roof to the landlord and 8 August 2025, when it was properly fixed. A leaking roof is a serious issue that should be investigated and repaired quickly. It is important that any repair be completed professionally and properly. If it is not, a single leak may develop into a big leak or multiple other leaks may occur. Roof leaks can cause significant damage to a tenant’s belongings. For these reasons, I find a delay of 8.5 weeks to fix the leaking roof to be unreasonable. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord failed to maintain the roof in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation. I find $500.00 to be reasonable. In settling on this amount, I have considered the fact that the landlord has already reduced the tenant’s rent by $275.00 per week for six weeks from 14 July 2025 – 20 August 2025 ($1,650.00) in recognition of the ongoing issue with the roof. A further $500.00 brings the total rent reduction to $2,150.00 across 8 weeks, which I think fairly reflects the loss of amenity suffered as a result of the leaking roof.
The tenant submitted a news article about another case in the Tribunal where $5,000.00 in compensation was ordered for a landlord’s failure to maintain. The reported case involved a leaking roof caving in on the tenant during a shower and dead rats from the ceiling falling. The landlord delayed repairing the roof for three months, which meant the tenant had to shower elsewhere. The premises were also without electricity for two weeks. The reported case is more serious than the present. The roof in the present case did not collapse and the leaks were modest. The tenant was able to use the premises and was not deprived of basic amenities such as showering. I do not consider the reported case is comparable. Condensation
Around the same time as the leaks in the roof occurred, the tenant began experiencing large wet patches on the ceiling in the hallway and upstairs bedrooms. Because of the timing, the tenant believed this to be a result of the leaking roof and reported the issue to the landlord.
The landlord sent photographs of the wet ceiling to different tradespeople. The landlord was advised on three separate occasions by three separate tradespeople that the issue was most likely condensation.
On 15 July 2025, the landlord sent photographs of the wet ceiling to a tradesperson from APS – Complete Property Services who replied saying: There’s no need to go there anymore; it’s not leaking. That is condensed water from humid indoor air. The water leakage issue is not that straightforward. Without a roof cavity, the air circulation in such houses is poor, and humid air can condense into water droplets.
On 23 July 2025, the landlord sent Peter Zhang a photograph of the wet ceiling sent to them by the tenant stating: The video from this morning shows that the entire roof area seems to be wet.
Peter replied: It’s not rain; it’s probably condensation.
Lastly, the report from John Zhang from Brotherteam House Maintain Ltd states: Findings & Conclusion Upstairs Bedroom Ceiling: No active leaks identified. Visible marks attributed to condensation or historic staining.
By the time John Zhang from Bortherteam House Maintain Ltd visited the premises, the landlord had been advised three times by three different people that the wet patches were the result of condensation and not a leaking roof. By 8 August 2025, I find the landlord was aware that there was an issue with recurring condensation inside the premises. The landlord accepts they did nothing to investigate or remedy the cause of the recurring condensation.
The landlord gave evidence that they have not experienced recurring condensation with the premises in previous tenancies. In my order dated 6 October 2025, I directed the landlord to have the premises assessed by a LBP and submit a condition report on whether the roof was leaking and whether the suspected condensation was developing as a result of a defect with the building. The report from Rfperfect Roofing Ltd does not address the second issue and the landlord did not submit any evidence to suggest the condensation was a result of any unreasonable use of the premises by the tenant. This convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the recurring condensation is connected to the premises and not the tenant. The comments from APS – Complete Property Services about the condensation being a result of the premises having no or minimal roof cavity supports this conclusion
The condensation in this case is very different from the types of condensation the Tribunal typically sees. The condensation does not simply concern a small amount of condensation on the windows, but large wet patches on the ceiling. It is understandable why the tenant was concerned.
By failing to investigate and remedy the recurring condensation, I find the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation. I find $2,000.00 to be reasonable. In settling on this figure, I have had regard to the nature and extent of the problem, as well as the effect on the tenant. The photographs submitted by the tenant show large, wet patches on the ceiling with visible droplets of water. The tenant was so concerned, they commissioned their own healthy homes report at a personal cost to them. I accept the tenant’s evidence that the dampness caused by the condensation increased the cold of the house and most likely increased their electricity costs as well. I also accept that it detracted from the amenity of the premises and was a cause of concern and anxiety for the tenancy.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

The tenant has proven that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. This is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered. 9
I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to investigate and remedy the leaking roof properly within a reasonable timeframe. This is because no evidence about the formal qualifications of any of the tradespeople, except for John Zhang from Bortherteam House Maintain Limited, was submitted. Whilst the landlord might have responded quickly by sending tradespeople to the premises, no evidence about efforts made to ensure these tradespeople were appropriately qualified to complete the repairs was submitted.
I also find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to investigate and remedy the recurring condensation. This is because the landlord received complaints by the tenant about wet patches on the ceiling. The landlord was advised by three 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A. independent contractors that the wet patches were most likely condensation. Despite this, the landlord did not take any steps to identify the cause of the recurring condensation or remedy it.
I find it just to order exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The effect of the unlawful act on the tenant. The tenant was understandably concerned for their property and health as a result of the recurring condensation. Stains from the moisture remained when the water dried up. b. Landlord’s should be deterred from failing to investigate and remedy problems properly and within a reasonable timeframe.
Considering these factors, I order the landlord to pay $700.00 in exemplary damages. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I must grant their request for name suppression.
I have a discretion to grant the landlord name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, the Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
The fact an adverse finding by the Tribunal against the landlord might negatively affect their reputation is an ordinary and natural consequence. It is not special or extraordinary. I find the public’s interest in publication outweighs the landlord’s interest in suppression. For this reason, I decline to grant the landlord name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317912 — State of repair at 117A Pah Road, Royal Oak, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317912 — State of repair at 117A Pah Road, Royal Oak, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions