What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328498 about?

The tribunal order states: Application dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5328498?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328498?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328498?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12789779-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328498 about?

The tribunal order states: Application dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5328498?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328498?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328498?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12789779-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

58 Rawhiti Road, Reporoa, Reporoa 3081 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5328498 — State of repair

Order

Application dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tenant has applied for compensation on the basis that the Landlord breached their obligations under s 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) in relation to: a. the condition and safety of the water tank; and b. vermin at the premises.
The tenancy was of a rural property. The Tenant lived there with three young children. The tenancy has now ended.
The issues for determination are: a. Water tank – Did the Landlord breach s 45 RTA by failing to provide and maintain a safe and adequate water supply? b. Vermin – Did the Landlord breach s 45 RTA by failing to take reasonable steps to protect the premises from vermin?
The tenant bears the onus of proving her claims on the balance of probabilities. Under s 85, I must determine the matter according to the substantial merits and justice of the case, while applying the general principles of the law.

RELEVANT LAW

Section 45(1) RTA requires a landlord to: a. provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, b. provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, c. comply with building, health and safety requirements, and d. where there is no reticulated water supply, provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water.
A failure to comply with these obligations is an unlawful act: s 45(1A).
However, the Tribunal must still be satisfied that there has in fact been a breach causing loss or damage before ordering compensation.
The Tenancy Agreement also contained a vermin clause. The Landlord agreed to ensure the property remained free of vermin for one month after possession.
The Tenant agreed to notify the Landlord of vermin within 30 days and, after that period, accepted liability for vermin and agreed to take steps to remove them, subject to shared liability where the tenant had taken all reasonable steps. ISSUE 1 – WATER TANK Parties’ positions
The Tenant says that for around 5½–6½ months the main water tank had cracks, was visibly slimy and covered in mildew. She and the children drank, bathed and cooked with this water. She produced photographs of the tank and photographs showing ringworm-type rashes on the children’s backs. She says this caused significant anxiety and health concerns.
The Landlord says the tank was replaced within about a month of receiving a written 14-day notice regarding the problem in late June 2025. Before then there had been no clear written complaint that the water was unsafe. The Landlord produced a letter from the local council confirming that the mains supply is routinely tested and that there were no concerns. No water testing of this particular tank was carried out. Application of law to facts
I accept that the tank looked concerning from the photographs. I also accept the Tenant genuinely believed that the water was unsafe and that she was worried about her children’s health.
However, there is no expert or laboratory evidence that the water from this tank was actually contaminated or unsafe to drink. The photos of the children’s skin show what appears to be ringworm, but there is no medical evidence linking the skin condition to the water supply. Ringworm is generally a fungal infection transmitted by direct contact rather than through treated water, but I am by no means a subject expert, and would have appreciated some guidance from a medical professional.
There is some dispute about when the Landlord first became aware of the seriousness of the tank issue. The Tenant says she raised it verbally during inspections earlier in the tenancy. The property manager says the first clear notice that the water supply was a serious concern came in the written 14-day notice in June 2025. What is not disputed is that the tank was fully replaced on 29 June 2025, within about a month of that written notice.
Taking all the evidence together, I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that: a. the water supplied from the tank was in fact unsafe; or b. the landlord unreasonably delayed in remedying the problem once clearly put on notice.
In terms of s 45(1)(b) and (ca), a Landlord must provide and maintain adequate water storage and keep the premises in reasonable repair. In a rural context, some degree of wear to an older tank may be expected. Here, once the problem was clearly notified in writing, the landlord acted by replacing the tank within a relatively short period.
Applying s 85, I have weighed the tenant’s understandable concern and anxiety against the absence of firm evidence of contamination and the remedial steps taken. On the substantial merits and justice of the case, I am not satisfied a breach of s 45 in relation to the water tank has been proven.
The claim that the landlord breached s 45 in relation to the water tank is not established and is dismissed. ISSUE 2 – VERMIN Parties’ positions
The Tenant says there was an ongoing rodent problem: rats or mice in kitchen cupboards, drawers and children’s clothing, rodent damage to flooring and to bedding and linen. She produced photographs showing rodent droppings and chewing damage in the laundry floor. She says this caused distress to her and the children, who were scared by them at nighttime and thought they were monsters.
The Landlord notes this is a rural property where some presence of mice and other animals is to be expected. The entry inspection (supplied to the Tenant shortly after move-in) recorded bait stations under the house with bait untouched and advised the tenant to observe and top up bait if it was taken, or to ask the Landlord to provide more. The Tenant says she did not read this report and was not specifically told about the bait stations before signing on to the tenancy.
When the Tenant later raised concerns about rodents, the property manager inspected, asked the Landlords to place more bait and to seal up potential entry points, and asked the Tenant to monitor. The Landlord says reasonable steps were taken in response to each complaint. Application of law to facts
The photographs clearly show that rodents were present at times during the tenancy and caused some damage to the tenant’s belongings. Despite washing clothes and bed linen, the Tenant says they still smelt musty and like mice. I accept that this was unpleasant and distressing, particularly with young children in the home.
However, in assessing whether there has been a breach of s 45, I must consider what steps it was reasonable for the Landlord to take in the circumstances, and what steps reasonably fell to the tenant.
This was a rural property. Vermin are an ongoing risk in such areas. The tenancy agreement specifically addressed vermin, with the Landlord responsible for the first month and the tenant assuming primary responsibility after that, subject to shared responsibility where the Tenant had taken all reasonable steps.
The evidence shows: a. Bait stations were in place at the start of the tenancy. b. The entry inspection, provided two days after move-in, recorded the bait and explained the expected (possible) need for monitoring and topping-up. c. When later notified of increased vermin activity, the property manager arranged further baiting and asked the owners to seal gaps, which they did do, and there are signs the problem did abate.
The Tenant says she did not read the entry inspection and did not initially know about the bait stations. I accept the bait stations were present, and the information was made available in writing. The Landlord cannot fairly be held solely responsible for the Tenant’s decision not to read material provided soon after the tenancy began, that information having been provided to her for the purpose of confirming the condition of the premises.
There is no clear evidence that the Landlord ignored reports of infestation or failed to act once specifically notified. The steps taken, baiting and sealing, in a rural setting, are consistent with what a reasonable Landlord would do.
Under s 85 I must look at the substantial merits and justice. The Tenant and children plainly suffered inconvenience and anxiety. However, those impacts alone are not enough to find a statutory breach where the evidence shows the Landlord had systems for vermin control in place, informed the Tenant about them, and responded when notified of problems.
On the balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied that the Landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness or repair, or failed to comply with applicable health and safety requirements in relation to vermin.
The claim that the landlord breached s 45 in relation to vermin is not established and is dismissed.
As the tenant has not succeeded on either head of her claim, no compensation or rent reduction is ordered.

Order

Application dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tenant has applied for compensation on the basis that the Landlord breached their obligations under s 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) in relation to: a. the condition and safety of the water tank; and b. vermin at the premises.
The tenancy was of a rural property. The Tenant lived there with three young children. The tenancy has now ended.
The issues for determination are: a. Water tank – Did the Landlord breach s 45 RTA by failing to provide and maintain a safe and adequate water supply? b. Vermin – Did the Landlord breach s 45 RTA by failing to take reasonable steps to protect the premises from vermin?
The tenant bears the onus of proving her claims on the balance of probabilities. Under s 85, I must determine the matter according to the substantial merits and justice of the case, while applying the general principles of the law.

RELEVANT LAW

Section 45(1) RTA requires a landlord to: a. provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, b. provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, c. comply with building, health and safety requirements, and d. where there is no reticulated water supply, provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water.
A failure to comply with these obligations is an unlawful act: s 45(1A).
However, the Tribunal must still be satisfied that there has in fact been a breach causing loss or damage before ordering compensation.
The Tenancy Agreement also contained a vermin clause. The Landlord agreed to ensure the property remained free of vermin for one month after possession.
The Tenant agreed to notify the Landlord of vermin within 30 days and, after that period, accepted liability for vermin and agreed to take steps to remove them, subject to shared liability where the tenant had taken all reasonable steps. ISSUE 1 – WATER TANK Parties’ positions
The Tenant says that for around 5½–6½ months the main water tank had cracks, was visibly slimy and covered in mildew. She and the children drank, bathed and cooked with this water. She produced photographs of the tank and photographs showing ringworm-type rashes on the children’s backs. She says this caused significant anxiety and health concerns.
The Landlord says the tank was replaced within about a month of receiving a written 14-day notice regarding the problem in late June 2025. Before then there had been no clear written complaint that the water was unsafe. The Landlord produced a letter from the local council confirming that the mains supply is routinely tested and that there were no concerns. No water testing of this particular tank was carried out. Application of law to facts
I accept that the tank looked concerning from the photographs. I also accept the Tenant genuinely believed that the water was unsafe and that she was worried about her children’s health.
However, there is no expert or laboratory evidence that the water from this tank was actually contaminated or unsafe to drink. The photos of the children’s skin show what appears to be ringworm, but there is no medical evidence linking the skin condition to the water supply. Ringworm is generally a fungal infection transmitted by direct contact rather than through treated water, but I am by no means a subject expert, and would have appreciated some guidance from a medical professional.
There is some dispute about when the Landlord first became aware of the seriousness of the tank issue. The Tenant says she raised it verbally during inspections earlier in the tenancy. The property manager says the first clear notice that the water supply was a serious concern came in the written 14-day notice in June 2025. What is not disputed is that the tank was fully replaced on 29 June 2025, within about a month of that written notice.
Taking all the evidence together, I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that: a. the water supplied from the tank was in fact unsafe; or b. the landlord unreasonably delayed in remedying the problem once clearly put on notice.
In terms of s 45(1)(b) and (ca), a Landlord must provide and maintain adequate water storage and keep the premises in reasonable repair. In a rural context, some degree of wear to an older tank may be expected. Here, once the problem was clearly notified in writing, the landlord acted by replacing the tank within a relatively short period.
Applying s 85, I have weighed the tenant’s understandable concern and anxiety against the absence of firm evidence of contamination and the remedial steps taken. On the substantial merits and justice of the case, I am not satisfied a breach of s 45 in relation to the water tank has been proven.
The claim that the landlord breached s 45 in relation to the water tank is not established and is dismissed. ISSUE 2 – VERMIN Parties’ positions
The Tenant says there was an ongoing rodent problem: rats or mice in kitchen cupboards, drawers and children’s clothing, rodent damage to flooring and to bedding and linen. She produced photographs showing rodent droppings and chewing damage in the laundry floor. She says this caused distress to her and the children, who were scared by them at nighttime and thought they were monsters.
The Landlord notes this is a rural property where some presence of mice and other animals is to be expected. The entry inspection (supplied to the Tenant shortly after move-in) recorded bait stations under the house with bait untouched and advised the tenant to observe and top up bait if it was taken, or to ask the Landlord to provide more. The Tenant says she did not read this report and was not specifically told about the bait stations before signing on to the tenancy.
When the Tenant later raised concerns about rodents, the property manager inspected, asked the Landlords to place more bait and to seal up potential entry points, and asked the Tenant to monitor. The Landlord says reasonable steps were taken in response to each complaint. Application of law to facts
The photographs clearly show that rodents were present at times during the tenancy and caused some damage to the tenant’s belongings. Despite washing clothes and bed linen, the Tenant says they still smelt musty and like mice. I accept that this was unpleasant and distressing, particularly with young children in the home.
However, in assessing whether there has been a breach of s 45, I must consider what steps it was reasonable for the Landlord to take in the circumstances, and what steps reasonably fell to the tenant.
This was a rural property. Vermin are an ongoing risk in such areas. The tenancy agreement specifically addressed vermin, with the Landlord responsible for the first month and the tenant assuming primary responsibility after that, subject to shared responsibility where the Tenant had taken all reasonable steps.
The evidence shows: a. Bait stations were in place at the start of the tenancy. b. The entry inspection, provided two days after move-in, recorded the bait and explained the expected (possible) need for monitoring and topping-up. c. When later notified of increased vermin activity, the property manager arranged further baiting and asked the owners to seal gaps, which they did do, and there are signs the problem did abate.
The Tenant says she did not read the entry inspection and did not initially know about the bait stations. I accept the bait stations were present, and the information was made available in writing. The Landlord cannot fairly be held solely responsible for the Tenant’s decision not to read material provided soon after the tenancy began, that information having been provided to her for the purpose of confirming the condition of the premises.
There is no clear evidence that the Landlord ignored reports of infestation or failed to act once specifically notified. The steps taken, baiting and sealing, in a rural setting, are consistent with what a reasonable Landlord would do.
Under s 85 I must look at the substantial merits and justice. The Tenant and children plainly suffered inconvenience and anxiety. However, those impacts alone are not enough to find a statutory breach where the evidence shows the Landlord had systems for vermin control in place, informed the Tenant about them, and responded when notified of problems.
On the balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied that the Landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness or repair, or failed to comply with applicable health and safety requirements in relation to vermin.
The claim that the landlord breached s 45 in relation to vermin is not established and is dismissed.
As the tenant has not succeeded on either head of her claim, no compensation or rent reduction is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328498 — State of repair at 58 Rawhiti Road, Reporoa, Reporoa 3081

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328498 — State of repair at 58 Rawhiti Road, Reporoa, Reporoa 3081

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LAW

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LAW

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.