What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338626 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 5338626?

Compensation: Failure to maintain ro…: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338626?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338626?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13184481-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338626 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 5338626?

Compensation: Failure to maintain ro…: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338626?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338626?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13184481-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

241 Marua Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5338626 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5338626 — net $2,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain roof	$2,500.00	Failure to maintain roof
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,528.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5338626 — net $2,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain roof	$2,500.00	Failure to maintain roof
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,528.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Noble Property Management Limited As Agent For Marua House Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 24 February 2026.
The tenancy began on 31 January 2024 and ended on 29 August 2025. The tenant claims the landlord failed to maintain the roof in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant seeks compensation for this alleged breach.
The tenant withdrew their claim that the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards at the hearing. This occurred after the landlord submitted a copy of the healthy homes assessment report completed by All Clear Group Limited. The report confirms the premises comply with all aspects of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 from 3 May 2023.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the roof in a reasonable state of repair?

The law

Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which they are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
A landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy it. 1
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 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. 2 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 3
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 4 Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The premises contain an addition, which is a bedroom. The roof on the bedroom is flat and different from the pitched roof covering the rest of the premises. The tenant claims they noticed discolouration on the beams inside the bedroom ceiling around the end of the August 2024. They reported this to the landlord, because they believed it to be a sign of moisture. A contractor was sent to the premises on 9 September 2024 to assess the situation. The tenant claims the 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 3 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 4 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. contractor told them that the problem was not due to condensation or a lack of ventilation.
The tenant claims no repairs were completed and they continued to experience mould on the beams in the bedroom. The tenant also claims the bedroom was damp and had a musty smell. The tenant claims they told the landlord about these issues during an inspection on 7 November 2024. The tenant claims the landlord advised them to use an anti-mould product and to ventilate the bedroom, which they did. Despite this, the tenant claims the continued to experience mould, damp and a musty smell in the bedroom. The tenant claims they advised the landlord that they were still experiencing these issues during an inspection on 25 February 2025.
A second leak developed in the laundry in early February 2025. The tenant describes this leak as coming from the windows. The tenant does not take issue with this leak, which they claim was investigated and repaired within a reasonable timeframe, being sometime in late March 2025. The tenant highlights this leak to support their claim that there was quite obviously something wrong with the premises and the mould and damp in the bedroom was not due to condensation or a lack of ventilation.
On 29 July 2025, the tenant came home from work to find an active leak in the bedroom ceiling. The tenant claims some gib had fallen away and water was dripping from the ceiling onto the carpet, which was wet. The tenant immediately reported the issue to the landlord who replied on 31 July 2025, advising that a tradesperson had been organised. The landlord suggested the tenant use a dehumidifier and heater in the meantime to try to keep the room as dry as possible.
The tenant claims they had to move all of their belongings out of the room and into another room, because of the leak. The tenant claims they were unable to use both rooms, because one room had an active roof leak and the other was full of their belongings. The tenant also claims their family, including young daughter, continuously got sick during this time.
A tradesperson was sent to the premises on 4 August 2025. The tenant claims the tradesperson told them the roof was in a very bad condition.
The tenant sent the landlord a termination notice on 6 August 2025. The tenant claims they wanted to end the tenancy because of the issues with the roof and the impact it was having on their ability to use the premises, as well as their health.
The tenant gave evidence that a second leak developed in the living room on 19 August 2025.
Other than the visit by the tradesperson on 4 August 2025, the tenant claims nothing was done to try to repair the issue before the tenancy ended and the problem was not fixed by the time the tenancy ended. Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord claims they investigated the tenant’s initial complaints in August 2024 quickly and were advised that the problem was condensation. The landlord submitted an invoice from Total Roof and Property Maintenance dated 24 September 2024. It states: Description Complete roof inspection at above mentioned property... ... All widows were open upon my arrival, the drier was operating and the area felt very damp as a result. ... This is a condensation issue that can only be resolved by ventilation. ...
The landlord claims they relied on the professional advice of Total Roof and Property Maintenance Ltd, which was why they advised the tenant to use anti- mould products and to ventilate the premises.
The landlord accepts a leak developed in the laundry in February 2025 and claims they sent a tradesperson to investigate and repair this issue quickly. The landlord submitted an invoice from Quinstruction Limited dated 28 March 2025. It states: Details Investigate leak, Remove roof flashing and check under – seal holes; Seal back on missing lead nail heads, seal up holes where ones were missing; Watre test roof, note water going behind guttering; Seal up gaps in exterior window architraves and facia board
The landlord also submitted an email from Quinstruction Limited dated 17 October 2025. I relevantly states: Hi Paige As discussed, we were contracted to look at a leaking issue in April 2025. There were no major holes or wide open cracks, the roof sheeting itself while not new, wasn’t in a condition where it was leaking through the sheeting. ...
The landlord initially gave evidence that Quinstruction visited the premises twice, once in March 2025 and once in April 2025. They said that the visit in March was in relation to the laundry and the visit in April was in relation to the roof generally however, after reviewing their notes and examining the contents of Quinstruction Limited’s invoice and email, they accepted the purpose of the visit in April 2025 was most likely to check on the work completed in the laundry in March 2025. This was a reasonable concession in light of the evidence.
The landlord claims that they responded quickly to the tenant’s complaint about a leak in the bedroom on 29 July 2025 by sending a tradesperson to visit the premises on 4 August 2025.
The landlord accepts a second leak occurred in the living room on 19 August 2025. There is some disagreement between the parties about whether this second leak is connected to the first leak or a separate, new leak. The answer to this question is not particularly relevant to the assessment I must undertake.
The landlord submitted an email from Prime Property Maintenance dated 16 October 2025. It confirms that the entire roof for the premises was replaced between 10 September 2025 – 15 September 2025. The landlord claims the reason for the delay was contractor availability. They submit the repairs were completed within a reasonable timeframe from the first leak in the bedroom on 29 July 2025.
The email from Prime Property Maintenance also refers to a visit they made to the premises on 21 August 2025 to impose a temporary fix to the leak. The landlord gave evidence the owner organised the repairs for the roof. They accept the tenant may not have been advised about this visit and the temporary repairs and offered their apologies to the tenant for this at the hearing. Analysis
The tenant first reported the issue to the landlord sometime in August 2024. The landlord responded by sending a tradesperson from Total Roof and Property Maintenance Ltd to the premises to investigate the issue on 9 September 2024. I find the landlord investigated the issue within a reasonably timeframe at this point.
The advice from Total Roof and Property Maintenance Ltd was that the problem was due to condensation. They recommended ventilating the premises. The landlord was entitled to rely on this professional advice and conclude there was no leak with the roof, but only up to a certain point. After the visit from Total Roof and property Maintenance Limited on 9 September 2024, the tenant continued experiencing issues with mould on the beams in the bedroom. They reported this to the landlord during an inspection on 2 November 2024 and were advised to use anti-mould products and to ventilate the premises. I find this was an appropriate response at this stage. This is because a professional had investigated the issue only two months prior and confirmed the problem was due to condensation. Quite reasonably, the landlord concluded that it might take some time for the problem to fix itself after remedial measures were implemented.
By 25 February 2025 however, it had been approximately 5 months since Total Roof and Property Maintenance Limited had visited the premises and 3 months since the tenant had implemented the remedial measures recommended by the landlord. Notwithstanding this, the tenant advised the landlord that they were still experiencing issues with mould on the beams in the bedroom. The inspection photographs show mould on the beams near the ceiling. The premises had also experienced a leak in the laundry earlier in the month. I find the landlord’s duty to investigate the condition of the roof was triggered again on 25 February 2025. This is because the tenant told the landlord that they were still experiencing the same issues, despite using anti-mould products and ventilating the premises. There was also evidence that mould on the beams in the bedroom was still present. The fact that a leak occurred in the laundry earlier in the month also indicated that the problem was perhaps worsening. All of this should have alerted the landlord to the reasonable possibility that the original diagnosis completed in September 2024 was incorrect or incomplete, and further investigation was required.
I find the landlord sent a tradesperson to inspect the roof on 31 July 2025. On the balance of probabilities, I find Quinstruction Limited’s visit to the premises in April 2025 to look at what they describe as a “leaking issue” was in relation to the leak in the laundry. They completed repairs in late March 2025, and it seems more likely than not that the purpose of their visit in April 2025 was to check whether those repairs were satisfactory. I am not convinced the purpose of their visit was to assess the state of the roof in general.
There is a delay of approximately 23 weeks between 25 February 2025 and 31 July 2025. A roof that is potentially leaking or defective is a serious issue that should be investigated and repaired quickly. This is because a leaking roof has the potential to cause serious damage to the premises and tenant’s belongings. I find a delay of 23 weeks to investigate the issue to be unreasonable. For this reason, I find the landlord failed to maintain the roof in a reasonable state of repair.

How much should the landlord pay the tenant in compensation?

The law

Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
The following factors are relevant when deciding to award compensation: 5 • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. Analysis
I find $2,500.00 to be a reasonable amount of compensation the landlord should pay the tenant considering the following factors: a. The nature of the breach. I assess the seriousness of the breach to be moderate. A leaking roof poses a health and safety concern, because it can lead to mould and potentially damage the tenant’s belongings or in the worst case scenario, collapse entirely. In this case however, the tenant’s belongings were fortunately not significantly damaged and the roof did not cave in entirely. I also note that this is not a case where the landlord has done nothing to try to discharge their obligations. They initially investigated the issue quickly by sending an appropriately qualified professional to assess the roof. b. The duration of the breach. The breach endured for approximately 23 weeks, which is a relatively long time. The amount of compensation ordered averages out to approximately $108.69 per week, which is reasonable. c. The effect of the breach on the party. The tenant experienced mould on the ceiling beams in the bedroom. I accept the tenant’s evidence that this was a health concern for them. No medical evidence was submitted to confirm a causal link between the mould in the bedroom and any health condition suffered by the tenant. The tenant also experienced two leaks in the roof towards the end of the tenancy. I accept their evidence that they lost the use of two bedrooms from 29 July 2025 – 29 August 2025 as a result. This is because the second bedroom was full of the tenant’s belongings that were relocated from the leaking bedroom. The rent should have abated during this 5 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. time, but did not. 6 Lastly, the leaking roof prompted the tenant to end the tenancy. Filing fee & name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I must grant their request for name suppression.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338626 — State of repair at 241 Marua Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338626 — State of repair at 241 Marua Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the roof in a reasonable state of repair?

How much should the landlord pay the tenant in compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the roof in a reasonable state of repair?

How much should the landlord pay the tenant in compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions