What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5332639 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 5332639?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5332639?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5332639?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13391883-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5332639 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 5332639?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5332639?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5332639?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13391883-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

20 Parliament Street, Thorndon, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5332639 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5332639 — net $528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$500.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$528.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants name and identifying details.
Propertyscouts (2025) Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionTenant Compensation$500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$528.00

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenants against the landlord, the dispute relates to a leaking window.
At the hearing today two tenants were in attendance, that is [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2]. Mr Christensen attended for the property management company.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 1 February 2019, at that time the landlord was “Peter & Yvonne Bacon Trust”, by way of a property manager, Nice Place Property Management Limited.
On 6 September 2024, there was a change of property manager to Pimlico Limited trading as Propertyscounts Wellington.
These tenants came into the premises in January 2025, it seems by way of a variation of the tenancy agreement.
On 4 June 2025, the tenant sent a text message to the landlord with a video showing dripping on the windowsill. The landlord confirms receiving this. The landlord’s position is that this was the first time the problem was raised, and the first they knew of it.
On 6 June 2025 the landlord contacted a contractor for a quote regarding an assessment of the leak.
On 11 June 2025 a quotation was provided for the assessment. A copy of that quote has been provided to the Tribunal. The property manager reports sending that quote to the landlords the same day.
On 20 July 2025 the tenant emailed the landlord at the email address [Email address for property maintenance software redacted], stating: I was doing a clean in my room yesterday afternoon when I noticed some mould has started on the carpet at the base of my window in my bedroom where the water is damaging the wall lining. I just wanted to let you know I have cleaned it up but this will not remove it, I wish to hear back from you on the issue.
Mr Christensen states that this email is not an email the landlord uses, and it was never received. [Property maintenance software] being a service used to log maintenance requests.
On 29 August 2025, the landlord approved proceeding with the investigation, and the contractor attended following that.
The landlord attended the premises on 22 September 2025 to inspect the issue.
The property manager states that on 2 October 2025 the Landlord decided to end the tenancy then undertake the repairs and put the property on the market.
The Property Manager gave notice to the tenant to end the tenancy. This was a 42 day notice, and the Property Manager accepts that this notice was wrong, the notice should have been 90 days. When that was raised by the tenants, the Property Manager says that the tenants were asked when they wished to leave, but they kept with their original tenancy end date.
The tenants left the premises on or around 15 November 2025.

TENANTS CASE

The tenants seek compensation of $7,000 in relation to the window leak.
[Tenant 1] states that he has been paying the full rental for the premises, and over the time there has been an ongoing leak.
[Tenant 1] states that he moved in on 1 February 2019, and the leak started some three years ago, in his bedroom.
When it would rain there would be a drip occur around the window, and it would land on the window sill. The extent of the leak has worsened over time, and this was reported to the original property manager (Nice Place). [Tenant 1] says that the property manager at the time did not do much to address the problem, but recently a builder attended and opened the wall, and confirmed the leak.
The tenants say about a month after the builder attended, the landlord terminated the tenancy, giving 42 days’ notice.
The tenants disagree that they did not raise the issue of the leak earlier, [Tenant 1] says that at the time of the meeting in September 2024 the leak was raised with the landlord.

LANDLORDS CASE

Mr Christensen states that after taking over in September 2024, he attended for an inspection and no issues with the window were raised. The landlord says that it was not until 4 June 2025 that this was raised, and then on 6 June 2025, a contractor was appointed to assess the leak.
The property manager states that there is no record of receiving the email sent by the tenant in July, noting it was sent to a generic address for the platform used for service requests, which does not get emails to the landlord.
Ultimately the owner approved the investigation work on 29 August 2025.
The contractor undertook the assessment, and the decision was made to terminate the tenancy so the property could be put on the market.
The Property Manager submits that any delay related to the need to obtain owner approval.
No 14 day notice was issued by the tenants.
Mr Christensen states that he contacted Nice Place Property Management to see if they had any maintenance requests for the window, but none could be found.

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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

ANALYSIS

The tenants have applied for an order that $7,000 compensation be paid in relation to a leaking window in [Tenant 1]’s bedroom.
I begin by noting that there is no dispute that there is a leak in [Tenant 1]’s bedroom window. At no stage has that been in dispute, but what is disputed is when that was raised to the landlord, and whether the landlord got on with the repair efficiently.
The RTA confirms that the obligation to repair and maintain the premises, is on the landlord.
However, there is also an obligation on the tenant to raise with the landlord when repairs and maintenance are needed. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenants responsibilities, and that includes at subsection 1(d) that the tenant “shall”: notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs;
From a practical perspective, that provision makes sense. Certainly the landlord may find that certain work is needed with inspections, but it is the tenant who is living in the property, so will often be in the best position to identify when work is needed, and when that is discovered, there is a statutory obligation on the tenant to raise that with the landlord.
The parties agree that the tenant sent the message on 4 June 2025, notifying the landlord of the leaking window. The property managers. position is that this is the first time that the leak was reported, whereas the tenants say that in fact the leak had been reported well prior.
Having heard from both parties, I find there is no reason that I should prefer one version over the other. Both the property manager and the tenant were sincere in their evidence around when the issue was raised, but at the end of the day, the onus to prove the claim sits with the tenant. If the evidence is on the fence, then the claim hasn’t been proven.
There is otherwise no documentary evidence supporting an earlier reporting on the part of the tenant.
That as far as the Tribunal is concerned, the evidence is that the leak was first raised on 4 June 2025.
However, that is not the endpoint as far as the claim is concerned, because once the leak was raised, the landlord had an obligation to get on to have the work completed. In this case, the repair had not been completed by the time the tenancy ended in November 2025.
I am not able to conclude on the evidence that the landlord has not acted with reasonable haste, but I do consider the tenant should be provided some level of compensation. The tenants are correct, they were paying rent, and should have received premises that met both the contractual and legal requirements over the tenancy period, and that includes premises that were dry, and did not leak. In short, the tenants were not receiving what they were paying rent for, and they sustained a loss from that perspective.
The sort of claims are always very difficult to determine, because it is impossible to quantify what the tenants’ precise loss would be. There is no doubt there would be an inconvenience arising from the leak, and by mid July, the carpet was becoming mouldy under the window. The best that I can do, is to step back and consider what a fair level of compensation should be, but that must take to account what the likely loss and inconvenience would be for the tenant. Having undertaken that process, I have determined that a reasonable level of compensation in the circumstances would be $500. That is a little under a week of rental.
I can see no basis for ordering compensation beyond that.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the tenant has applied for name suppression and has been substantially successful, so tenant named suppression is ordered.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been partly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable, therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5332639 — net $528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$500.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$528.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants name and identifying details.
Propertyscouts (2025) Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionTenant Compensation$500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$528.00

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenants against the landlord, the dispute relates to a leaking window.
At the hearing today two tenants were in attendance, that is [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2]. Mr Christensen attended for the property management company.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 1 February 2019, at that time the landlord was “Peter & Yvonne Bacon Trust”, by way of a property manager, Nice Place Property Management Limited.
On 6 September 2024, there was a change of property manager to Pimlico Limited trading as Propertyscounts Wellington.
These tenants came into the premises in January 2025, it seems by way of a variation of the tenancy agreement.
On 4 June 2025, the tenant sent a text message to the landlord with a video showing dripping on the windowsill. The landlord confirms receiving this. The landlord’s position is that this was the first time the problem was raised, and the first they knew of it.
On 6 June 2025 the landlord contacted a contractor for a quote regarding an assessment of the leak.
On 11 June 2025 a quotation was provided for the assessment. A copy of that quote has been provided to the Tribunal. The property manager reports sending that quote to the landlords the same day.
On 20 July 2025 the tenant emailed the landlord at the email address [Email address for property maintenance software redacted], stating: I was doing a clean in my room yesterday afternoon when I noticed some mould has started on the carpet at the base of my window in my bedroom where the water is damaging the wall lining. I just wanted to let you know I have cleaned it up but this will not remove it, I wish to hear back from you on the issue.
Mr Christensen states that this email is not an email the landlord uses, and it was never received. [Property maintenance software] being a service used to log maintenance requests.
On 29 August 2025, the landlord approved proceeding with the investigation, and the contractor attended following that.
The landlord attended the premises on 22 September 2025 to inspect the issue.
The property manager states that on 2 October 2025 the Landlord decided to end the tenancy then undertake the repairs and put the property on the market.
The Property Manager gave notice to the tenant to end the tenancy. This was a 42 day notice, and the Property Manager accepts that this notice was wrong, the notice should have been 90 days. When that was raised by the tenants, the Property Manager says that the tenants were asked when they wished to leave, but they kept with their original tenancy end date.
The tenants left the premises on or around 15 November 2025.

TENANTS CASE

The tenants seek compensation of $7,000 in relation to the window leak.
[Tenant 1] states that he has been paying the full rental for the premises, and over the time there has been an ongoing leak.
[Tenant 1] states that he moved in on 1 February 2019, and the leak started some three years ago, in his bedroom.
When it would rain there would be a drip occur around the window, and it would land on the window sill. The extent of the leak has worsened over time, and this was reported to the original property manager (Nice Place). [Tenant 1] says that the property manager at the time did not do much to address the problem, but recently a builder attended and opened the wall, and confirmed the leak.
The tenants say about a month after the builder attended, the landlord terminated the tenancy, giving 42 days’ notice.
The tenants disagree that they did not raise the issue of the leak earlier, [Tenant 1] says that at the time of the meeting in September 2024 the leak was raised with the landlord.

LANDLORDS CASE

Mr Christensen states that after taking over in September 2024, he attended for an inspection and no issues with the window were raised. The landlord says that it was not until 4 June 2025 that this was raised, and then on 6 June 2025, a contractor was appointed to assess the leak.
The property manager states that there is no record of receiving the email sent by the tenant in July, noting it was sent to a generic address for the platform used for service requests, which does not get emails to the landlord.
Ultimately the owner approved the investigation work on 29 August 2025.
The contractor undertook the assessment, and the decision was made to terminate the tenancy so the property could be put on the market.
The Property Manager submits that any delay related to the need to obtain owner approval.
No 14 day notice was issued by the tenants.
Mr Christensen states that he contacted Nice Place Property Management to see if they had any maintenance requests for the window, but none could be found.

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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

ANALYSIS

The tenants have applied for an order that $7,000 compensation be paid in relation to a leaking window in [Tenant 1]’s bedroom.
I begin by noting that there is no dispute that there is a leak in [Tenant 1]’s bedroom window. At no stage has that been in dispute, but what is disputed is when that was raised to the landlord, and whether the landlord got on with the repair efficiently.
The RTA confirms that the obligation to repair and maintain the premises, is on the landlord.
However, there is also an obligation on the tenant to raise with the landlord when repairs and maintenance are needed. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenants responsibilities, and that includes at subsection 1(d) that the tenant “shall”: notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs;
From a practical perspective, that provision makes sense. Certainly the landlord may find that certain work is needed with inspections, but it is the tenant who is living in the property, so will often be in the best position to identify when work is needed, and when that is discovered, there is a statutory obligation on the tenant to raise that with the landlord.
The parties agree that the tenant sent the message on 4 June 2025, notifying the landlord of the leaking window. The property managers. position is that this is the first time that the leak was reported, whereas the tenants say that in fact the leak had been reported well prior.
Having heard from both parties, I find there is no reason that I should prefer one version over the other. Both the property manager and the tenant were sincere in their evidence around when the issue was raised, but at the end of the day, the onus to prove the claim sits with the tenant. If the evidence is on the fence, then the claim hasn’t been proven.
There is otherwise no documentary evidence supporting an earlier reporting on the part of the tenant.
That as far as the Tribunal is concerned, the evidence is that the leak was first raised on 4 June 2025.
However, that is not the endpoint as far as the claim is concerned, because once the leak was raised, the landlord had an obligation to get on to have the work completed. In this case, the repair had not been completed by the time the tenancy ended in November 2025.
I am not able to conclude on the evidence that the landlord has not acted with reasonable haste, but I do consider the tenant should be provided some level of compensation. The tenants are correct, they were paying rent, and should have received premises that met both the contractual and legal requirements over the tenancy period, and that includes premises that were dry, and did not leak. In short, the tenants were not receiving what they were paying rent for, and they sustained a loss from that perspective.
The sort of claims are always very difficult to determine, because it is impossible to quantify what the tenants’ precise loss would be. There is no doubt there would be an inconvenience arising from the leak, and by mid July, the carpet was becoming mouldy under the window. The best that I can do, is to step back and consider what a fair level of compensation should be, but that must take to account what the likely loss and inconvenience would be for the tenant. Having undertaken that process, I have determined that a reasonable level of compensation in the circumstances would be $500. That is a little under a week of rental.
I can see no basis for ordering compensation beyond that.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the tenant has applied for name suppression and has been substantially successful, so tenant named suppression is ordered.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been partly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable, therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5332639 — Tenancy dispute at 20 Parliament Street, Thorndon, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5332639 — Tenancy dispute at 20 Parliament Street, Thorndon, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CASE

LANDLORDS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CASE

LANDLORDS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions