What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5326041 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 5326041?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5326041?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5326041?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12822743-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5326041 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 5326041?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5326041?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5326041?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12822743-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5326041 — State of repair

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord and tenant’s names and identifying details.
The tenant’s application is dismissed for the

Reasons

given. Reasons:

Both parties attended the hearing on 2 December 2025.
The tenant applied to the Tribunal for reduction of a fixed term tenancy and compensation related to a burglary on 4 August 2025. At the hearing it became clear that the tenant is content to remain at the premises until the fixed term expires on 24 January 2026. Burglary
The tenant explained that the landlord’s ladder was used by criminals to break into the premises through an upstairs window. Further, the alarm was not working. The landlord’s photographs show the damage to the window caused by the burglary. The landlord has fixed the window and made it secure. The tenants’ photographs showed the aftermath of the burglary, with belongings on the floor. The tenant says she lost jewellery and her laptop. The Police report states that the value was more than $5,000.00.
The landlord’s obligation under section 46 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) is to provide and maintain “such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure”. The window targeted by criminals had latches and security stays. The alarm was not working, but it is not clear that this would have alerted anyone to the burglary. It was not a monitored alarm and only had sensors on the front door. The landlord’s ladder happened to be near the house because the landlord (who lives on the same section) said he was pruning some trees. I do not consider that the incidental use of the landlord’s property in the burglary makes the landlord liable.
I find that the premises were reasonably secure, and the landlord was not in breach of section 46.
The alarm ought to have been maintained in accordance with the general obligation to maintain the premises, but the landlord said this was disclosed to the tenants and I accept the alarm would not have been activated in the circumstances. It is not clear why the alarm is not working or how expensive it would be to fix. The landlord is not required by the Act to provide an alarm and therefore I have decided not to award compensation. Stove
There was also an issue with the stove not working. The tenant moved in on 25 January 2025. She says the landlord was told about the stove at the first inspection. The tenant says the landlord took two months to fix the stove.
The landlord says they checked the stove, and one large burner was not working. The landlord fixed this. Subsequently, there was another problem which the invoice says was “...caused due to blockage in jets from spillage. Cleared and all working fine, not [a] warranty issue.”
The Act requires the landlord to provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair, including cooking facilities. The landlord’s maintenance obligation is limited to observable or notified defects. Landlords must investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention in a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances.
I am not satisfied that the landlord breached their maintenance obligation. The large burner was fixed in about March 2025. The further issue was remedied in about August 2025 and does not appear to have been due to a fault with the stove (it was not a warranty issue). As such, it was not really a maintenance issue.
There was a further issue about the performance of the stove. The tenant said that it was too slow to boil water, which would cost more. The landlord said they spoke to the technician who advised that the gas flame could not be increased for safety reasons. The tenant was also offered a portable stove while the stove was fixed, although the tenant did not view this as appropriate.
I do not view the stove’s performance as a maintenance issue. The stove is working. Rather it is a concern about the suitability of the premises for the tenant’s purposes. There is no implied contractual term that premises are suitable for the purposes for which they have been let (Felton v Brightwell [1967] NZLR 276). Where residential tenancies are concerned, and subject to the landlord’s obligations under the Act, the general principle must be that landlords do not owe an obligation to ensure premises meet a tenant’s individual preferences or needs. Name suppression
The tenant sought suppression. I grant suppression to both parties. This order contains information about the security of the premises which probably should not be made public.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord and tenant’s names and identifying details.
The tenant’s application is dismissed for the

Reasons

given. Reasons:

Both parties attended the hearing on 2 December 2025.
The tenant applied to the Tribunal for reduction of a fixed term tenancy and compensation related to a burglary on 4 August 2025. At the hearing it became clear that the tenant is content to remain at the premises until the fixed term expires on 24 January 2026. Burglary
The tenant explained that the landlord’s ladder was used by criminals to break into the premises through an upstairs window. Further, the alarm was not working. The landlord’s photographs show the damage to the window caused by the burglary. The landlord has fixed the window and made it secure. The tenants’ photographs showed the aftermath of the burglary, with belongings on the floor. The tenant says she lost jewellery and her laptop. The Police report states that the value was more than $5,000.00.
The landlord’s obligation under section 46 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) is to provide and maintain “such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure”. The window targeted by criminals had latches and security stays. The alarm was not working, but it is not clear that this would have alerted anyone to the burglary. It was not a monitored alarm and only had sensors on the front door. The landlord’s ladder happened to be near the house because the landlord (who lives on the same section) said he was pruning some trees. I do not consider that the incidental use of the landlord’s property in the burglary makes the landlord liable.
I find that the premises were reasonably secure, and the landlord was not in breach of section 46.
The alarm ought to have been maintained in accordance with the general obligation to maintain the premises, but the landlord said this was disclosed to the tenants and I accept the alarm would not have been activated in the circumstances. It is not clear why the alarm is not working or how expensive it would be to fix. The landlord is not required by the Act to provide an alarm and therefore I have decided not to award compensation. Stove
There was also an issue with the stove not working. The tenant moved in on 25 January 2025. She says the landlord was told about the stove at the first inspection. The tenant says the landlord took two months to fix the stove.
The landlord says they checked the stove, and one large burner was not working. The landlord fixed this. Subsequently, there was another problem which the invoice says was “...caused due to blockage in jets from spillage. Cleared and all working fine, not [a] warranty issue.”
The Act requires the landlord to provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair, including cooking facilities. The landlord’s maintenance obligation is limited to observable or notified defects. Landlords must investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention in a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances.
I am not satisfied that the landlord breached their maintenance obligation. The large burner was fixed in about March 2025. The further issue was remedied in about August 2025 and does not appear to have been due to a fault with the stove (it was not a warranty issue). As such, it was not really a maintenance issue.
There was a further issue about the performance of the stove. The tenant said that it was too slow to boil water, which would cost more. The landlord said they spoke to the technician who advised that the gas flame could not be increased for safety reasons. The tenant was also offered a portable stove while the stove was fixed, although the tenant did not view this as appropriate.
I do not view the stove’s performance as a maintenance issue. The stove is working. Rather it is a concern about the suitability of the premises for the tenant’s purposes. There is no implied contractual term that premises are suitable for the purposes for which they have been let (Felton v Brightwell [1967] NZLR 276). Where residential tenancies are concerned, and subject to the landlord’s obligations under the Act, the general principle must be that landlords do not owe an obligation to ensure premises meet a tenant’s individual preferences or needs. Name suppression
The tenant sought suppression. I grant suppression to both parties. This order contains information about the security of the premises which probably should not be made public.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5326041 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5326041 — State of repair

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions