What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5318701 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 5318701?

Compensation: failure to maintain ba…: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to maintain gr…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5318701?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5318701?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12836862-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5318701 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 5318701?

Compensation: failure to maintain ba…: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to maintain gr…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5318701?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5318701?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12836862-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5318701 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5318701 — net $1,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: failure to maintain bathroom floor	$750.00	failure to maintain bathroom floor
Compensation: failure to maintain grab rail	$250.00	failure to maintain grab rail
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,028.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,028.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5318701 — net $1,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: failure to maintain bathroom floor	$750.00	failure to maintain bathroom floor
Compensation: failure to maintain grab rail	$250.00	failure to maintain grab rail
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,028.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,028.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,028.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims and dismissed.

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 22 December 2022 and is periodic. The tenant’s application was filed on 5 August 2025 and scheduled for hearing on 30 October 2025.
Part way through the hearing the tenant advised the Tribunal that they were visually impaired and were unable to view any of the documentary material provided by the landlord. They stated they had asked if they could bring a support person to assist at the hearing but were told they could not. There was no note on the Tribunal file concerning this issue.
The Tribunal conducted a Case Management Conference and adjourned the matter, inviting the tenant to seek support. The hearing was subsequently rescheduled for 20 November 2025.
On 7 November 2025, the Tribunal received advice from another social housing provider that they had been asked to assist the tenant with matters arising out of the tenancy.
The tenant appeared at the hearing and was supported by [Housing Case Managers], Housing Case Managers with the other provider. [ Property Manager] appeared for the landlord.
The landlord explained that they had made a referral to the other provider in 2024, which due to a misunderstanding was not taken up by the tenant at the time. Another referral was made in March 2025, which was accepted. The provider concerned is now actively engaged assisting the tenant. Claims
The tenant claims the landlord has failed to maintain the property in a reasonable condition (section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act), specifically: i. Tree roots in the back lawn ii. A sign falsely stating that the property was security monitored. iii. Trip hazard (cobble stones) iv. Shower room floor. v. Grab rail in the shower room. vi. Weatherboards vii. Kitchen cabinetry viii. Back door and lock
The tenant seeks work orders, compensation for loss of amenity, and exemplary damages.
During the hearing, the tenant referred to matters concerning the Healthy Homes Standards, specifically heating and insulation, although no claims relating to these issues were made in the application. The property complies with the standards.
Compensation for loss of amenity is a remedy that the Tribunal can award when a tenant’s enjoyment or use of the premises is reduced due to a landlord’s breach of their obligations under the Act or the tenancy agreement. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and deter wrongdoing.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the tenant. The standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities. The tenant must establish more likely than not that the landlord has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Act. Tree roots in the back lawn
The tenant has produced photographs showing tree roots protruding above ground in the back lawn. The roots are from trees on the other side of the boundary fence on council land (roadside verge). The tenant stated the roots were a trip hazard and had impacted on the ability of grandchildren to play on the lawn. The tenant stated that they had pointed this out to the property manager conducting the first inspection and was advised that the matter was being looked into, and that the landlord had approached the council about removing the trees. The tenant thought this an unlikely outcome and formed a view that adding topsoil to the area would remedy the matter, although they did not share this with the property manager at the time.
The landlord acknowledged that they were aware of the matter but had no record of the tenant raising it as an issue until it was included in the application filed on 05 August 2025. They stated that the council had ultimately declined to remove the trees but had agreed to the landlord removing the roots which was done prior to the previous hearing.
The tenant recalled mentioning the matter in passing just the once and accepted that they had not raised it again. The tenant stated that having been told by the property manager that the matter was being addressed, the landlord had then failed to do so within a reasonable period. They stated that the contractor who completed the work in August 2025 had told them that removing the roots was unnecessary and that a layer of topsoil would have been sufficient. Falsely stating that the property was security monitored.
The tenant stated that there was a sticker displayed on one of the property’s windows advising that the property was subject to CCTV surveillance. They said that earlier this year, the landlord had applied to terminate the tenancy for antisocial behaviour, but the application was successfully defended. The tenant stated that the landlord had claimed to have footage of the behaviour in question, but later advised that no such footage existed. Upon this discovery, the tenant realised that the property was not actually monitored. The tenant stated that they had been misled, and that had they known the property was not monitored, they would not have entered into the agreement. The tenant added that the majority of the tenant’s in the complex were of retirement age, and they had assumed that the landlord had taken extra precautions to provide a safe environment.
The landlord stated that the footage concerned had been taken by a neighbour on their cellphone and was not from CCTV. The landlord stated that the property was a unit in a complex with others that were previously owned by the council. They said that the properties had been offered, and continued to be used, as subsidised pensioner accommodation, not disabled accommodation. The landlord also stated that some of the properties had medical call bells, which had been decommissioned some time ago, and that most had now been removed. The landlord further stated that there had never been CCTV cameras, but due to issues with theft and vandalism, the landlord had placed stickers advising of CCTV as a deterrent. The landlord stated the property manager had explained this to the tenant at the time. Trip hazard (cobble stones)
The tenant produced a photograph showing an area of cobble stones near an outside tap and a fire hose. The cobble stones are on a path leading to several units, including the tenants. The photograph shows a small area which appears to have been lifted and then roughly re-laid. The tenant states it is a trip hazard for themselves and other tenants. There are no other photographs of the path, but the tenant claims this area is indicative of the overall condition. The tenant recalls raising the issue with the property manager but cannot remember when. However, they maintain that the matter would have been clearly evident to the property manager during inspections.
One of the housing case managers stated they had been present at an inspection in June 2025 when the issue was raised.
The landlord acknowledged that the matter had been raised at the June 2025 inspection and stated that the pathway in question had been concreted on 11 August 2025. Shower room floor.
There is a disabled access bathroom containing the shower and toilet. The tenant stated that after the first few uses of the shower, they noticed that the slope of the floor was incorrect and appeared to direct some water away from the plughole. They said they raised this issue during the first six-month inspection in February 2023. The property manager believed there was nothing wrong but noted that there was no shower curtain. A maintenance contractor for the landlord installed a shower curtain shortly afterward. Despite this, the tenant maintained that the problem had persisted, and they raised it again at the next inspection in June 2023, and at each inspection thereafter. The tenant stated that a plumber had visited in July 2023 and advised that there was nothing wrong with the plumbing, but that the issue was with the floor. The tenant also stated that around eleven people had visited the property to inspect the floor before it was finally remedied on 7 July 2025. The tenant viewed the delay as unacceptable, stating that while the shower was usable that the floor was slippery, although the greatest inconvenience had been washing and drying towels used to mop the floor after each shower.
The landlord stated that following the second inspection in June 2023, they created a work order for the matter to be investigated and, if necessary, rectified. The landlord has a contract with a maintenance company, who scopes the work and then engages various subcontractors. The landlord stated that the maintenance company invited the individual contractors to contact the tenant directly to arrange access. The landlord stated that the first work order was cancelled because the tenant had not been contactable by the contractors. Another work order was generated on or about June 2024, and the work was completed, along with other work, on 7 July 2025.
The tenant did not accept that their unavailability was a satisfactory reason for the delay, stating while they were often busy with charitable endeavours, and not home, they had given a general permission for contractors to access the property when not present. The landlord stated that they had a policy requiring tenant’s to be present at inspections unless they gave permission but had no record of the tenant giving such permission. Grab rail in the shower room.
The tenant has produced a photograph of the handrail on the wall next to the toilet which has come away from the wall and is resting on the floor. The tenant stated that despite raising it as an issue during an inspection in December 2024, that the matter remained unresolved until August 2025.
The landlord accepted that the inspection reports for December 2024 and June 2025, both showed the handrail resting on the floor, and that the matter appeared to have been overlooked. They stated that a work order had been generated and initially believed that the work had been completed with the other work on the bathroom in July 2025 and were surprised to discover that it had not. Weatherboards
The property is a one-bedroom unit built in the 1980s consisting of a bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, and open plan dining / lounge area.
The tenant has produced a photograph of a small area of exterior cladding at the rear side of the property showing some signs of general deterioration. The tenant states that the deterioration may result in water ingress if not addressed. The issue has been raised for the first time in the application. Kitchen cabinetry
The tenant has produced a close-up photograph taken during an inspection in June 2025, showing swelling at the base of a kitchen cabinet. The tenant states that the swelling causes a sliding door in the cabinet to become difficult to open at times. Despite raising the issue, the tenant states that the matter remained unresolved. The tenant also stated that following the inspection, contractors had measured and shaved a bit off the bottom of the door, which the tenant believed to be an interim fix. One of the housing case managers assisting the tenant stated that they were present at the inspection when the issue was raised and confirmed that the door was difficult to slide.
The landlord stated that repairs had been carried out to the kitchen cabinetry and that the contractor had advised that the cabinet and sliding door did not require further repair, suggesting that the matter had been addressed. Back door and lock
In March 2025, the police executed a search warrant at the property for firearms. The tenant states that the warrant was the result of a lie perpetrated by a neighbour with a vendetta. The tenant states that no firearms or ammunition were located. The tenant also states that the police had called him prior to executing the warrant, and that he was not home but invited them to contact the landlord, who had a key and could let them in. However, the police did not do so and instead smashed the door in, causing damage to both the main door and a screen door.
The damage was repaired soon afterward by the landlord. The tenant states that the main door was replaced and, while it functioned, they described the workmanship as “shoddy.” The screen door was not replaced but was re-hung and, like the main door, was difficult to operate. The tenant states that a contractor was sent with instructions to change the lock. The tenant states, despite telling the contractor that the issue was not with the lock but with the strike plate, that the contractor proceeded to change the lock, stating they had been “instructed to do so.” The tenant states they were forced to use a piece of rope to secure the screen door, however the property manager had accused the tenant of impeding their access. Although the lock was replaced, the issue with the strike plate remained unresolved until it was finally addressed in August 2025.
The landlord accepted that the initial repair had not been satisfactory and was revisited when raised by the tenant. Law
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act), the landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.
In Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV 2009 085-001431, 24 February 2010 the Court stated: “I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair the 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”.
Whether the landlord has failed to meet their obligations will involve an objective assessment of the evidence.
Failure to meet obligations under section 45(1)(b) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded.
Under section 78(1)(g) of the Act, the Tribunal may, where it appears that an agreement between the parties has been induced by misrepresentation, make orders varying or setting aside the agreement, either wholly or in part.
In Gillies v Blackham and Co Real Estate Limited [2021] NZTT Timaru 4297433 at para [6], the Tribunal stated: “A misrepresentation is a false statement of fact made by one of the contracting parties to the other. Silence is not a misrepresentation unless the maker of the statement has a duty in law to speak.”
A tenant alleging that they were induced to enter an agreement by a misrepresentation must establish: i. That there has been a false statement of fact, ii. That the statement was made by or on behalf of the landlord, iii. That they relied on the misrepresentation, and iv. That the misrepresentation caused a loss.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the tenant. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The tenant must establish more likely than not that the landlord has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Act. Decision Falsely stating that the property was security monitored.
In dealing with the claim that the landlord falsely promoted the property as CCTV monitored, there is no evidence that the landlord or anyone acting as their agent made a false statement of fact prior to the commencement of the tenancy. The presence of a sticker alone, without any accompanying statement, is insufficient and does not amount to a misrepresentation. The claim is dismissed. Other claims
The balance of the claims concern whether the landlord has failed in their obligation to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.
Having established the nature of the defect or fault, the issue is whether, once advised, the landlord responded appropriately or whether the delay was unreasonable, resulting in a loss of amenity.
The tenant claims that, because they are visually impaired, the landlord owed them a greater duty maintaining the property. While the landlord acknowledged the tenant’s visual impairment, they stated that they had been told that using large font in correspondence would be sufficient, and that the tenant preferred to communicate by phone. The landlord stressed that the property is subsidised pensioner accommodation, and that the tenant had not been placed at the property as a “disabled” person. The landlord also stated that the tenant owns a vehicle and that reports had been made of the tenant being seen driving it, raising questions about the degree of the tenant’s impairment. The tenant denied driving the vehicle, saying that friends drove it for them, but accepted that they may have moved the van within the complex from time to time.
While I accept that the tenant has a visual impairment and that the landlord is aware of this, I am not satisfied that this in the circumstances imposed a higher duty on the landlord in relation to the maintenance of the property. The property is subsidised pensioner accommodation. There is no evidence that the tenant was placed in the property due to a disability. While there is some dispute as to the extent of the tenant’s impairment, I consider it unnecessary to make a finding on this point. In this case, I find that the landlord owed the same obligation that applies to all tenants under the Act. Tree roots in the back lawn
Based on the photograph produced by the tenant, I am not satisfied that the presence of the roots necessarily amounts to a defect with the property. I am also not satisfied that the landlord has failed to maintain the lawn in a reasonable condition. At most, the roots appear to have been no more than a minor inconvenience to those mowing the lawn. Trip hazard (cobble stones)
This matter was raised for the first time in June 2025 and addressed in August 2025, when the landlord replaced the entire pathway. The time period was reasonable. Although the tenant states that the cobbled area shown in the photograph was indicative of the general condition of the pathway, based on the evidence I am not satisfied that this was the case. The claim is dismissed. Shower room floor.
I am satisfied that the first time the matter was identified as a possible drainage issue was at the inspection in June 2023. A chronological log kept by the landlord for the tenancy shows that on 08 June 2023 a referral was made: “please review the shower drain, as it leaves large pools of water on the floor”. On 10 July 2023, there is an entry stating “CANCELLED QOUTE – alter slope on bathroom floor”. There is no further mention of the matter again until 03 July 2025, when accommodation is booked for the tenant while work on the bathroom is completed.
In the inspection report from December 2023, the “floor” is flagged as a non- urgent repair, but does not specify which floor. The same comment appears in the reports from May 2024 and December 2024. These reports include several photographs of the bathroom floor, suggesting that it is a point of concern. The inspection report from June 2025, which was completed by a different property manager, does not record the floor as an issue.
The cancellation of the quote in July 2023 appears to coincide with the plumber’s visit and advice that any pooling was not a drainage issue but rather an issue with the slope of the floor, and therefore outside their remit. Between July 2023 and June 2025, there is no record of the matter progressing, although it appears to have been discussed at the inspections mentioned. If there have been issues with the individual contractors struggling to contact the tenant, these have not been formally recorded by the landlord. I have some doubts as to the effectiveness of the management of this matter.
A landlord who engages others to assist in meeting their obligations nevertheless remains responsible for ensuring that the work is completed. In this case, I am satisfied that the delay has been unreasonable and that as a result the tenant has suffered a loss of amenity. Considering the delay and the inconvenience suffered, I award the tenant compensation of $750.00 for loss of amenity. Grab rail in the shower room.
Despite being noted in the two inspection reports from December 2024 and June 2025, the issue was not addressed until August 2025. The presence of the rail was important, given that the shower is a wet room, as it mitigates the risk of slipping. I award the tenant $250.00 compensation for loss of amenity. Weatherboards
The evidence produced by the tenant does not establish a defect requiring repair. The claim is dismissed. Kitchen cabinetry
The landlord states that the matter has been investigated and the landlord advised that no further repair is required at this time. As with the weatherboards, the evidence produced does not clearly establish a defect requiring repair. The claim is dismissed. Back door and lock
There is no record of the issue being raised by the tenant between when the incident occurred in March 2025 and June 2025. In the June 2025 inspection report, there is a note: “front door where police forced entry remains damaged.” Another property manager prepared the report. On 15 July 2025, the tenant’s regular property manager also noted “front door issues.” Taking June 2025 as the first advice of the defect, I am not satisfied that the time taken to fully resolve the issue was unreasonable. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109(3) of the Act.
In awarding exemplary damages, the Tribunal shall consider: i. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. ii. The effect of the unlawful act. iii. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. iv. The public interest; and v. Whether it is just to make the award
If there are multiple breaches of an obligation (multiple instances of unlawful acts) under a particular section, only one order of exemplary damages may be made.
This approach was confirmed by the District Court in Manage My Rental v Baxter NZDC 12011, and MBIE v Hillis Shearing Limited NZDC 27583, which held that the correct approach is a global approach, meaning one order to a single maximum, irrespective of the number of breaches of a section.
Both unlawful acts proved for failing to maintain the bathroom floor and the grab rail fall under section 45(1)(b) of the Act. The landlord states they are a large social housing organisation, that any failure was unintentional and that resourcing and high demand were significant factors. Ultimately, while the landlord may rely on others to assist in meeting their obligations, responsibility remains with the landlord. Although the tenant claims to have slipped, there is no evidence of any injury suffered.
It is in the public interest that parties to an agreement meet their obligation under the Act. However, as stated I am not satisfied that the landlord owed the tenant any additional duty beyond those applying to all tenants. The tenant has been awarded compensation for loss of amenity based on the evidence of loss suffered. Taking these factors into account, I am not satisfied that an award of exemplary damages is justified. Costs
Because [ tenant ] has party succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been substantially successful defending the claims and is granted name suppression.
The tenant has been partly, but not substantially, successful.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
While I am satisfied that the facts and reasoning of this decision are in the public interest, I am not satisfied that this interest necessarily extends to the name of the tenant. Upon careful consideration, I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and exercise the discretion in section 95A (4). The Tribunal also orders suppression of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5318701 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5318701 — State of repair

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