What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5322671 about?

The tribunal order states: This order replaces the prior Order dated 4 December 2025. This Order corrects

How much money was awarded in case 5322671?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5322671?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5322671?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12935460-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5322671 about?

The tribunal order states: This order replaces the prior Order dated 4 December 2025. This Order corrects

How much money was awarded in case 5322671?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5322671?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5322671?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12935460-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5322671 — State of repair

Order

This order replaces the prior Order dated 4 December 2025. This Order corrects the typographical error at paragraph [27] of that Order, which incorrectly records $130.00 x 37 weeks and 2 days as $14,875.00 instead of $4,847.14. 1 All other details remain the same.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities and Mani Fatu Tiai must pay [The tenant/s] $0.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants applied for compensation, general damages and/or exemplary damages and reimbursement of the application fee. 1 This reissue is served under the High Court Rules 2016 11.10 that allows for the correction of accidental slip or omission (the “slip rule”).

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo 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 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 summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation or general damages where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation or general damages awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. TENANT’S CLAIMS Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) obligations to the tenant?
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is 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”. 2
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 and/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 3 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 4 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 5 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 6 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Breaching either of these s45(1) 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. 2 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 3 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 5 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain
The female tenant gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. A. Bathroom door
The female tenant confirmed, the issue with the sliding door to the bathroom constantly coming off the rails, making it difficult to impossible to open and close by her disabled partner (who has no arms or hands) and her four young children aged between 7months and 6 years old. Further, she states that the door coming off its rails was a known and consistent issue for a period of at least 6 years, as the prior tenants confirmed they had experienced the same issue with the door during their tenancy. The landlord has had a pattern of having the door placed back on the rollers, occasionally replacing broken rollers and
The female tenant explained that the bathroom could not be used privately and had to remain open when in use due the rollers on the door coming off the rail constantly. She stated this severely compromised the privacy, dignity, and safety of the occupants of the house, but most especially of her disabled partner. She confirmed the unreliability of the door was particularly problematic for him as he requires ongoing support from multiple external support workers, who enter the home regularly to assist with personal care and daily living. This lack of privacy while he is using the bathroom is highly distressing to him when his young children are in the house and when there are other visitors to their home. Additionally, in June 2025, he fell while trying to access the bathroom due to the door’s inaccessibility, causing further injury and a hole in the wall, which the landlord acknowledged and repaired. The three young children, aged 6, 5 and 4 have also found it difficult to access the bathroom due to the door being too hard to move on the rollers.
The parties confirmed the following chronology for addressing the issues with the door: DateIssue raisedDateIssue addressed Comments 3 May 2023 Work Order raised as door did not open or close 4 May 2023 Track adjusted 18 June 2023 Work Order raised as door did not open or close 23 June 2023 Track adjusted 20 June 2023 Work Order raised as door did not open or close 20 July 2023 Rollers replaced 31 January 2025 Work Order raised as door did not open or close 31 January 2025 Track adjusted The tenants says this issue kept arising in 2024, but they raised it during the annual inspection and nothing was done. The landlord says it is not in the inspection report. 10 March 2025 Heath and Safety Inspector raised the issue of the door not opening or closing again and the tenants raised the issue of no handle contributing to the rollers coming off the rail a few days after each adjustment and that they were tiring of having to raise this issue over and over and wanted a more permanent solution 20 May 2025 Track adjusted again. The tenants were told they required an OT report if they wanted approval for the installation of a handle that allowed the male tenant to access the door safely and without tipping the rollers off the tracks all the time. The tenants sought such as assessment from ACC and sent the report to the landlord (date of report not recorded but thought to be in July/August 2025 based on the text and email communications provided) 26 June 2025 Annual property inspection carried out. Tenant says she raised the issue of the door at the inspection. The landlord says it is not noted in the inspection report. This seems unlikely as the disabled tenant had a fall, in early June 2025, when he tried to open the jammed door. This caused damage to the wall. The damage and cause was reported to the landlord at this inspection and the damage fixed a few weeks later. 11 July 2025 Tenants issues the landlord with a 14-day notice requiring a more permanent solution to the door issue. The tenants also applied for a rent rebate until the issue was resolved with a more permanent solution. They sought Landlord did not respond to this notice until 23 July 2025 as the Housing Support manager was on leave, despite the tenants also sending it to the proxy for that manager. Landlord told tenants they would have a response about this as an acknowledgement of the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered. the rent rebate by 1 August 2025 at the latest. They got told that the request was denied on 5 August 2025, after the tenants followed up again. Rent rebate denied as bathroom accessible so landlord stated there was no loss of amenity, stress or inconvenience caused to the tenants and their children. 25 July 2025 Urgent Work Order- (has to be addressed in 4 hours) Tenant unable to allow entry as contractor wanted access in the evenings when everyone home and needing access to the bathroom. Tenant asked if the contractors could come back again in the day time. Landlord told her she would have to call and raise the issue again so a new WO could be raised as the urgent O expired after contact made with the tenant. Landlord says tenant did not raise the issue so nothing further was done. 29 July 2025 Landlord asks again for an OT assessment to allow it to look at more permanent solutions. Tenants follow up with ACC. Assessment done and OT contacts senior housing manager and asset manager. 22 August 2025 Big meeting with OT, asset manager, maintenance supervisor, and team leader. Plan agreed. Agree plan is to put more robust rollers on the door, two handrails the male tenant can use to safely access the door and a bottom rail to hold the door in place. Landlord stated at the hearing that as the tenant had objected to two maintenance supervisors being present at the meeting, there was no builder present, so the plan was not signed off by a builder, as being able to be implemented without causing damage to the home and needed to be. The tenant stated the landlord did not explain that one maintenance supervisor is internal and not a builder and one external and is a builder. The landlord sent the internal one to the meeting. None of this was communicated to the tenants, who left the meeting under the belief a plan had been agreed and would be implemented. August to November Tenant follows up a few times on when the 22 August solution will be implemented. A second contractor is sent out who doesn’t speak much English and his manager tells the tenant over the phone that they had been engaged just to repair the existing rail again. The tenant calls the customer contact centre out of frustration at no action and no communication from the landlord. 20 October 2025 Handles installed both sides of the door as recommend ed by the OT 4 November 2025 Work Order raised as door did not open or close 4 November 2025 Track adjusted 26 November 2025 Industrial rollers and a new track installed. Bottom rail installation found to be impractical as would cause structural damage to the premise. Issue fully resolved
The landlord and the female tenant both gave evidence of how each party had delayed the remediation works. I am not satisfied that the evidence proves the tenants caused any significant delay to the remediation of the issue but accept that some of the delay was due to the ack of local availability of the special handles required and there being a need for an occupational therapist report before the landlord could have the remediation works signed off. I do not however accept that these issues were the cause of the length delay in getting the issue fully remediated and consider the evidence shows that an ongoing lack of effective communication with the tenant was the main causal factor in the delays.
I am satisfied the evidence proves the landlord did not take steps to get the bathroom door issues investigated, quoted or repaired in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and consequently the disabled tenant continually had his privacy, dignity, and safety compromised because he was unable to safely access the bathroom without assistance and was forced to use the bathroom with the large door pushed back as it would not easily slide open and closed due to issues with the rollers or the track. Even after the male tenant sustain injuries in June 2025 due the door access issues, the landlord’s decision about the rent rebate for loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience was denied as the bathroom was deemed to be “accessible” if the door was permanently left open.
The tenants’ young children also found they did not possess the strength to open and close the bathroom door. As such the door had to remain open much of the tenancy. The tenants became frustrated at the lack of action and for a while in 2024 stopped raising the issue as it seemed pointless, but as the stress and inconvenience increased, the female tenant worked tirelessly to force the landlord to accommodate the male tenant’s special needs for the remediation of the door.
I find the tenants should receive a rent rebate of $130.00 per week for the period 10 March 2025 (when the landlord’s health and safety inspector noted the safety issues related to no handles and a door that kept coming off the tracks and raised a work order to get this significant safety issue investigated fully and addressed) to 26 November 2025 (when the door was fully remediated and fit for purpose) for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the male tenant and his young children and the female tenant who had to keep following the landlord up to get the issue remediated when it failed to communicate effectively with her about what it was or was not doing and why. This is a rent rebate of $4,847.14 for these 37 weeks and 2 days.
I also note that the landlord’s decision not to compensate the tenants for the loss of amenity, stress, inconvenience, privacy and safety from 11 July to 26 November 2025, has contributed to the higher quantum of compensation I have awarded to the tenants. Especially when the landlord knew the issue with the door had caused the male tenant an injury in June 2025.
I am also satisfied it would also be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The tenants have lived in this home with this repeated and known issue issue from April/May 2023 until 26 November 2025 and have suffered a significant loss of amenity, stress, loss of privacy and safety as well as other types of inconvenience when the landlord knew of these issues and did not take reasonable steps to investigate and remedy the issues in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances; b. The tenants also suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind it of its s45(1)(b) and (c) obligations under the RTA to no avail; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity for 37 weeks and 2 days; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.
As this claim was first raised around 3 May 2023, the tenants are barred by s109(2)(b) of the RTA for claiming exemplary damages for this breach, because this provision places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. The application was made on 13 August 2025, more than 12 months after 3 May 2023. B. Heat pump
The female tenant confirmed, she found the heat pump to be full of mould when she went to clean the filters and raised this at the annual property inspection on 26 June 2025. She says the landlord informed her that maintaining the heat pump was the tenant’s responsibility. By this, the landlord means the regular cleaning of the filters. It confirmed that it does not pay for regular servicing of heat pumps and had the serviced when an issue such as leaking or not cooling/heating is raised.
On 11 July 2025, the tenants sent the landlord a 14-day notice requiring it to investigate the mouldy heat pump, which they believed needed more than a filter clean as it was so full of mould. The tenants were concerned that using the heat pump would cause black mould spores to be spread into the air throughout the house. They had a very young newborn baby at the time that they were particularly concerned about.
On 4 August 2025, the landlord raised a work order.
On 11 August 2025, the maintenance manager came to look at the heat pump and recommended replacement.
On 26 August 2025 a contractor came to scope the job and to assess what kW heat pump was required to meet the healthy homes standards.
A cleaner came to investigate the heat pump again around mid-September 2025 to see if it could be cleaned enough to use safely until it could be replaced. The cleaner also recommended the heat pump be replaced as it was so full of mould that cleaning would not fix the issue. It was replaced on 2 September 2025.
While I appreciate the tenants went without heating over the coldest winter months, I am satisfied that the evidence proves the issue with the heat pump was investigated and remediated in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances. I dismiss the tenants claim accordingly. Failure to meet healthy homes standards
The tenants claims that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 17 January 2023. Therefore, the landlord had 120 days from the commencement date to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards, being Wednesday, 17 May 2023. A. Heating
The landlord and the tenant confirm that on 17 May 2023, the house met the heating standard and that the mould issue was identified around two years after that compliance date.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
There must be one or more fixed heaters that can directly heat the main living room.
The main living room is the largest room that is used for general, everyday living – for example a lounge, family room or dining room.
Heater(s) must be fixed (not portable) and must be at least 1.5 kW in heating capacity and meet the minimum heating capacity needed for the main living room. There are several options to calculate the heating capacity required for the main living room.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
I am satisfied the evidence proves the heat pump issue is a repair and maintenance issue and not a heathy homes standards breach. I therefore dismiss the tenant’s claim for breach of the heating standard.

Was the weekly rent charged by the landlords in excess of market rates?

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord required them to pay rent in excess of the market rent set by the Tenancy Services data.
The tenancy commenced on 17 January 2023 at the agreed weekly rental rate was $268.00 per week based on a market rent at the time of $678.00 per week.
From 25 April 2025, the tenants weekly rent was charged at the market rental rate of $810.00 per week.
The tenants state that this rent had been set above market rate, based on the market research they have undertaken using a rental appraisal of a similar property in their street by Ray White and the Tenancy Services data for Henderson and Henderson Valley.
The tenants have applied to the Tribunal seeking an order for reduction in the rent under s 25 of the RTA.
Section 25 of the RTA provides: Market rent (1) On an application made to it at any time by the tenant, the Tribunal may, in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this section, on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount, to be specified in the order, that is in line with the market rent. (2) .... (3) For the purposes of this Act, the market rent for any tenancy shall be the rent that, without regard to the personal circumstances of the landlord or the tenant, a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy, taking into consideration the general level of rents [(other than income-related rents within the meaning of [[section 2(1)]] of the [[Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992]])] for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant. (4) An order made under this section shall take effect on and from a date to be specified in the order, which may be the date of the order or any earlier or later date, but being no earlier than the date of the application for the order and no later than 30 days after the date of the order.
The are three questions arising for determination under s 25 of the RTA. First, what a market rent would be for the premise. Second, whether the rent charged is substantially above the market value. And, if so, thirdly, what the rent should be.
Each of these three questions are analysed separately below.

What would a market rent would be for the premise?

The landlord produced information about how its valuations are undertaken each year. A registered valuer undertakes valuations of each property based on QV using information such as the number of bedrooms, location, build year, modifications, amenities etc. The valuer comes up with a market rate range and recommends where in that range the property sits relative to other similar properties in the area. The valuer assessed the market rent for this property at between $740.00 and $860.00 per week and confirmed that $810.00 per week was a fair market value.
The tenants say that the Tenancy Services data for 1 January 2025 to 30 June 2025: a. For all properties in the [area suppressed] area show that the lower quartile for rental rates in the area sits at $730.00 per week, the median rents sit at $780.00 per week and the upper quartile for the area is $800.00 per week; b. For all properties in the [area suppressed] area show that the lower quartile for rental rates in the area sits at $550.00 per week, the median rents sit at $620.00 per week and the upper quartile for the area is $690.00 per week; c. For 4-bedroom houses in the [area suppressed] area show that the lower quartile for rental rates in the area sits at $700.00 per week, the median rents sit at $778.00 per week and the upper quartile for the area is $820.00 per week.
The Tenancy Services data for 1 April 2025 to 30 September 2025: a. For all properties in the [area suppressed] area show that the lower quartile for rental rates in the area sits at $628.00 per week, the median rents sit at $755.00 per week and the upper quartile for the area is $844.00 per week; and b. For 4-bedroom houses in the [area suppressed] area show that the lower quartile for rental rates in the area sits at $691.00 per week, the median rents sit at $778.00 per week and the upper quartile for the area is $808.00 per week;
A similar 4-bedroom houses in the tenants’ street was appraised by Ray White and a market rent of $780.00 per week was what Ray White held the market rent to be.

Was the rent substantially above the market value?

Market rent is the amount a landlord might reasonably expect to receive, and a tenant might reasonably expect to pay, for a tenancy. It needs to be similar to the rent charged for similar properties in similar areas.
The Tenancy Services market rent data comes from bond information held by Tenancy Services for non-government owned properties and provides an indication of the non-government rental market based on bonds lodged. This overall data for 2025 shows that the rent payable by the tenants was between $691.00 and $820.00 per week which is similar to the range the landlord’s valuer assessed the rental range at, being between $740.00 and $860.00 per week.
The market data shows the tenants are paying the upper end of market rental rates for this modified premise, that meets the specific and special needs of their family.
I conclude from the evidence the landlord has proven it undertakes full and property specific valuation and not just the type of rental appraisals a real estate agent or property management company may usually carry out. This valuation process yields a more accurate gauge on the current market rent for a property than the Tenancy Services data. The landlord is entitled to rely on this valuation.
The overall market rental information from tenancy services covers a wide array of rental premises in an area and is not especially helpful in assessing the market rental rates for a four-bedroom premise in that area and taking into consideration the special modifications.
For all these reasons I find that on the balance of probabilities, the evidence produced by the parties proves the current market rent for this premise is between $740.00 and $860.00 per week.

What the rent should be?

The tenants have paid a market rent of $810.00 per week from 25 April 2025.
I find that on the balance of probabilities, the evidence supports a finding that the rental rate being charged by the landlord is commensurate with market rental rates for the premise, albeit at the upper end of the market rental rate.
Therefore, the tenants claims for an order reducing the rent under s 25 of the RTA is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [the tenants] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name Suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
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.
The tenants have substantially succeeded in their proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5322671 — State of repair

Tenancy Tribunal case 5322671 — State of repair

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Was the weekly rent charged by the landlords in excess of market rates?

What would a market rent would be for the premise?

Was the rent substantially above the market value?

What the rent should be?

Property management

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Was the weekly rent charged by the landlords in excess of market rates?

What would a market rent would be for the premise?

Was the rent substantially above the market value?

What the rent should be?

Property management