What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328261 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and

How much money was awarded in case 5328261?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328261?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328261?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12695943-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328261 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and

How much money was awarded in case 5328261?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328261?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328261?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12695943-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5328261 — Leaks

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video and telephone conference.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair because the garage roof was leaking. She seeks compensation for goods stored in the garage that were damaged by the leak. The landlord disputes the claim on the basis that they have already paid compensation pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement that both parties signed. They also submit that further damage claimed by the tenant was due to her failure to store goods elsewhere until the leak was fixed, as she was advised to do by the landlord. Backgrounds facts and evidence
The tenancy commenced on 4 November 2022. The landlord agrees that there was initially a problem with the garage roller door and they replaced the runners so that the door fitted properly. On 25 November 2023, the tenant reported the garage leak to the landlord. The landlord visited the property and sealed two holes. In or about April 2024, the tenant again complained about a leak. The landlord sent a contractor to complete a full investigation. They discovered small leaks in the roof. In particular, there was a problem with the roof pitch. The landlord agrees that it took some time to fix the problem with the roof finally replaced on 19 May 2025.
In the meantime, the tenant advised the landlord that several of her belongings stored in the garage had been damaged by the leak and she sought compensation. The items that were damaged included a bed, clothing, shoes, a phone, dryer and some children’s toys. On 31 January 2025, the landlord sent the tenant an offer of $1,595 compensation subject to the terms of a settlement agreement forwarded to the tenant. The tenant accepted the offer by signing and returning the settlement agreement and received payment shortly thereafter. The key terms of the agreement were: a. The payment of $1,595 is not an acknowledgement of any fault on the part of the landlord in relation to any claims made by the tenant in relation to water damaged belongings; b. The parties agree to keep the terms and conditions of the settlement confidential; c. “The terms and conditions of settlement recorded in this agreement shall be in full and final settlement of all claims of any nature by [tenant] against [landlord] arising from water damaged belongings due to a roof leak in the garage.”
The landlord also gave evidence that following the settlement, they advised the tenant not to store belongings in the garage until the leak was fixed. They also placed a tarpaulin over the roof in February 2025 which was secured with ropes and wood to hold it down until the roof work could be done.
On 20 February 2025, the landlord and tenant signed an agreement regarding maintenance work to be completed at the property, which at that stage seems to be a roof assessment and covering the roof with a tarpaulin. On 20 March, the parties signed a second agreement which recorded that the garage would be re-roofed.
The tenant says she had no choice but to continue storing belongings in the garage before it was re-roofed because there was no room elsewhere. She claims that further leaks occurred and damaged her belongings. She seeks a second amount of compensation for the following items for which she obtained the following replacement quotes: a. Two suitcases (3 years old)—$158 b. Petrol stroke lawnmower (6 years old)—$279 c. Smart TV (3yearsold)—$428 d. Speaker (5 years old)—$249 e. Chest of drawers (8 years old)—$799 Total claim $1,913.00
The tenant produced photos of the suitcases, the lawnmower and the chest of drawers that were stored in the garage but not the TV or speaker. The photos were black and white. Therefore it was difficult to see the damage. The tenant says that the lawnmower, TV and speaker no longer worked properly due to water ingress.
The landlord’s response to the tenants new compensation claims is summarised as follows; a. The settlement agreement signed by the parties was ‘in full and final settlement’ of any claim arising from a roof leak; b. The tenant did not follow advice not to store belongings in the garage before the roof was replaced. Therefore, she has not mitigated her loss; c. The landlord secured a tarpaulin over the roof and the tenant did not report any problem that the tarpaulin was not secured properly or that water was still entering the garage; d. The alleged items damaged were old and not of much value. Therefore, any replacement costs should be fully depreciated. Discussion and findings
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under section 45(1)(b) RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) of the Act. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
It took over 12 months from the date of the second reported leak problem for the landlord to fix the roof by replacing the roof. While a garage leak is not as serious as a leak occurring inside a habitable room, and may not require such urgent attention, it nevertheless an interference with the tenant’s use of the premises for which rent is being paid. Therefore, I find that the time taken by the landlord to address the roof was unreasonable and a breach of s45(1)(b).
The parties entered a settlement agreement on 31 January 2025, in which the tenant accepted compensation “in full and final settlement of all claims of any nature by [tenant] against [landlord] arising from water damaged belongings due to a roof leak in the garage.” This agreement explicitly compensates the tenant for the landlord’s breach and prevents the tenant from making any further claim. The tenant signed the agreement before the leak was fixed and without any agreement as to when it would be fixed. In that context, it might be argued that, even if a new leak occurred, the tenant cannot make any further claim.
Even if I am wrong about how far reaching the settlement agreement is, there are other problems with the tenant’s claim. Section 49 RTA provides that where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or the RTA, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
The rules relating to loss mitigation mean that the tenant had an obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure her belongings were not further damaged because of the leaking roof, which was still be fixed. I find that she failed to do so in two respects: first she kept storing her belongings in the garage despite being advised not to do so, and/or stored them without covering them or taking other reasonable precautions about where to place them to avoid the leaking areas; secondly, she did not advise the landlord that water was still coming into the garage through the tarpaulin so that reasonable steps could be taken by the landlord to cover the roof if the tarpaulin was failing.
There is also a lack of evidence to prove that the TV, speaker and lawnmower were no longer working. For example, the tenant did not show these items to the landlord.
Finally, even if the tenant had proved that the landlord should be responsible for replacing the additional damaged belongings, the Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation. The tenant should be returned to the position they would have been in had the landlord not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. In this case, the tenants belongings are between 3-8 years old and I consider they should be fully depreciated.
In summary, for all of the above reasons, I consider the tenant has not proved their claim for compensation and it must be dismissed.
Because the decision refers to a confidential settlement agreement signed by the parties, I suppress the names and identifying details of both parties. K Stirling, 11 November 2025

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video and telephone conference.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair because the garage roof was leaking. She seeks compensation for goods stored in the garage that were damaged by the leak. The landlord disputes the claim on the basis that they have already paid compensation pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement that both parties signed. They also submit that further damage claimed by the tenant was due to her failure to store goods elsewhere until the leak was fixed, as she was advised to do by the landlord. Backgrounds facts and evidence
The tenancy commenced on 4 November 2022. The landlord agrees that there was initially a problem with the garage roller door and they replaced the runners so that the door fitted properly. On 25 November 2023, the tenant reported the garage leak to the landlord. The landlord visited the property and sealed two holes. In or about April 2024, the tenant again complained about a leak. The landlord sent a contractor to complete a full investigation. They discovered small leaks in the roof. In particular, there was a problem with the roof pitch. The landlord agrees that it took some time to fix the problem with the roof finally replaced on 19 May 2025.
In the meantime, the tenant advised the landlord that several of her belongings stored in the garage had been damaged by the leak and she sought compensation. The items that were damaged included a bed, clothing, shoes, a phone, dryer and some children’s toys. On 31 January 2025, the landlord sent the tenant an offer of $1,595 compensation subject to the terms of a settlement agreement forwarded to the tenant. The tenant accepted the offer by signing and returning the settlement agreement and received payment shortly thereafter. The key terms of the agreement were: a. The payment of $1,595 is not an acknowledgement of any fault on the part of the landlord in relation to any claims made by the tenant in relation to water damaged belongings; b. The parties agree to keep the terms and conditions of the settlement confidential; c. “The terms and conditions of settlement recorded in this agreement shall be in full and final settlement of all claims of any nature by [tenant] against [landlord] arising from water damaged belongings due to a roof leak in the garage.”
The landlord also gave evidence that following the settlement, they advised the tenant not to store belongings in the garage until the leak was fixed. They also placed a tarpaulin over the roof in February 2025 which was secured with ropes and wood to hold it down until the roof work could be done.
On 20 February 2025, the landlord and tenant signed an agreement regarding maintenance work to be completed at the property, which at that stage seems to be a roof assessment and covering the roof with a tarpaulin. On 20 March, the parties signed a second agreement which recorded that the garage would be re-roofed.
The tenant says she had no choice but to continue storing belongings in the garage before it was re-roofed because there was no room elsewhere. She claims that further leaks occurred and damaged her belongings. She seeks a second amount of compensation for the following items for which she obtained the following replacement quotes: a. Two suitcases (3 years old)—$158 b. Petrol stroke lawnmower (6 years old)—$279 c. Smart TV (3yearsold)—$428 d. Speaker (5 years old)—$249 e. Chest of drawers (8 years old)—$799 Total claim $1,913.00
The tenant produced photos of the suitcases, the lawnmower and the chest of drawers that were stored in the garage but not the TV or speaker. The photos were black and white. Therefore it was difficult to see the damage. The tenant says that the lawnmower, TV and speaker no longer worked properly due to water ingress.
The landlord’s response to the tenants new compensation claims is summarised as follows; a. The settlement agreement signed by the parties was ‘in full and final settlement’ of any claim arising from a roof leak; b. The tenant did not follow advice not to store belongings in the garage before the roof was replaced. Therefore, she has not mitigated her loss; c. The landlord secured a tarpaulin over the roof and the tenant did not report any problem that the tarpaulin was not secured properly or that water was still entering the garage; d. The alleged items damaged were old and not of much value. Therefore, any replacement costs should be fully depreciated. Discussion and findings
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under section 45(1)(b) RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) of the Act. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
It took over 12 months from the date of the second reported leak problem for the landlord to fix the roof by replacing the roof. While a garage leak is not as serious as a leak occurring inside a habitable room, and may not require such urgent attention, it nevertheless an interference with the tenant’s use of the premises for which rent is being paid. Therefore, I find that the time taken by the landlord to address the roof was unreasonable and a breach of s45(1)(b).
The parties entered a settlement agreement on 31 January 2025, in which the tenant accepted compensation “in full and final settlement of all claims of any nature by [tenant] against [landlord] arising from water damaged belongings due to a roof leak in the garage.” This agreement explicitly compensates the tenant for the landlord’s breach and prevents the tenant from making any further claim. The tenant signed the agreement before the leak was fixed and without any agreement as to when it would be fixed. In that context, it might be argued that, even if a new leak occurred, the tenant cannot make any further claim.
Even if I am wrong about how far reaching the settlement agreement is, there are other problems with the tenant’s claim. Section 49 RTA provides that where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or the RTA, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
The rules relating to loss mitigation mean that the tenant had an obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure her belongings were not further damaged because of the leaking roof, which was still be fixed. I find that she failed to do so in two respects: first she kept storing her belongings in the garage despite being advised not to do so, and/or stored them without covering them or taking other reasonable precautions about where to place them to avoid the leaking areas; secondly, she did not advise the landlord that water was still coming into the garage through the tarpaulin so that reasonable steps could be taken by the landlord to cover the roof if the tarpaulin was failing.
There is also a lack of evidence to prove that the TV, speaker and lawnmower were no longer working. For example, the tenant did not show these items to the landlord.
Finally, even if the tenant had proved that the landlord should be responsible for replacing the additional damaged belongings, the Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation. The tenant should be returned to the position they would have been in had the landlord not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. In this case, the tenants belongings are between 3-8 years old and I consider they should be fully depreciated.
In summary, for all of the above reasons, I consider the tenant has not proved their claim for compensation and it must be dismissed.
Because the decision refers to a confidential settlement agreement signed by the parties, I suppress the names and identifying details of both parties. K Stirling, 11 November 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328261 — Leaks

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328261 — Leaks

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions