What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5351901 about?

The tribunal order states: [Two of the tenants’] names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5351901?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5351901?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5351901?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13073401-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5351901 about?

The tribunal order states: [Two of the tenants’] names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5351901?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5351901?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5351901?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13073401-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Flat B, 112 Postman Road, Dairy Flat, Auckland 0794 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5351901 — Rent arrears

Order

[Two of the tenants’] names and identifying details must not be published.
Charlotte McKenzie Fletcher, Benjamin Ronald Destiny Edwards must pay Wiki Property Management Limited as agent for Keah Home Ltd $5,171.42 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Wiki Property Management Limited as agent for Keah Home Ltd immediately.
[Two of the tenants] are not liable to make any payment to the landlord other than the surrender of the bond.
Wiki Property Management Limited as agent for Keah Home Ltd is not liable to make any payment to [two of the tenants] in respect to the tenancy.

Reasons

Jane Zhou attended the hearing for the landlord.
Ms [tenant’s surname] and Mr [tenant’s surname] (“the other tenants”) attended for themselves. Ms Fletcher and Mr Edwards did not attend. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
The other tenants seek compensation for the landlord failing to maintain the sleepout’s bedroom ceiling, a sewage issue, for the landlord not meeting their smoke alarm obligations, and failing to meet the Healthy Homes Standards for draught, and insulation.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment over of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenancy was for a fixed term. The tenancy began on 9 April 2025 and was due to end on 8 April 2026. However, it ended early on 8 December 2025 upon the landlord’s replacement tenants fully moving in.
The tenants came together to form one group of tenants in slightly unusual circumstances. Ms Fletcher and Mr Edwards (who had two children) did not know the other tenants well. The other tenants moved into the premises on the understanding that they would occupy a self-contained sleepout, which had its own kitchenette, bathroom, living room, and bedroom. Ms Fletcher and Mr Edwards and their children would separately occupy the adjacent main house. Despite the fact that the tenants would be living in separate dwellings, they signed a single joint tenancy agreement with the landlord.
The tenancy (which included both dwellings) was for a fixed term beginning 9 April 2025 and ending on 8 April 2026. The rent was $1,000.00 per week. However, the tenants had agreed between themselves that Ms Fletcher and Mr Edwards would pay $700.00 rent for the main house and the other tenants would pay $300.00.
In late September 2025 (and fatally for the tenancy’s feasibility), Ms Fletcher and Mr Edwards moved out abruptly in late September 2025. Ms Fletcher and Mr Edwards ceased paying rent from 13 September 2025 leaving the other tenants marooned. The other tenants continued to live in the sleepout and to pay the landlord $300.00. However, they were unable to find new co-tenants to live in the main house.
Thankfully, the landlord was able to re-tenant the entire premises by the December date mentioned.

Is the landlord liable to the tenants for leaks?

The tenants say that the premises’ windows leaked. They say they brought the problem to the landlord’s attention verbally and they had images of the leaks. However, the property manager denied being aware that the windows needed repairing.
On 30 May 2025, the tenants reported to the landlord that the bedroom’s ceiling was leaking.
On 9 June 2025, the landlord’s waterproofing contractor visited the premises. He did not locate the source of the leak but treated some rusted roofing iron. The tenants reported the leak was continuing and the contractor returned on 19 and 27 June but still could not locate the leak. Finally, the contractor located the leak in mid-October and performed a repair on 23 October 2025, which was probably effective. Legal principles
Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1969 (RTA), landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) ... (b) 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 the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes...
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 1 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: 2 “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be...”
Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repair. 3 However, Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 4 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation... Discussion
I am satisfied that the sleepout’s ceiling did leak when it rained. The ceiling was mouldy in the area of the leaking and the bedroom was persistently damper and colder than it should have been as a result. The dampness resulted in an unpleasant, dank odour, and the tenants had to regularly clean away the mould.
I am not satisfied that the premises windows were not maintained to a reasonable state of repair. There were not contemporaneous communications confirming the tenants had complained about the windows and the images alone are not sufficient to persuade me that leaks were an ongoing issue that required attention. Findings
I find the landlord did not provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair in respect to the leaking ceiling. 1 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. 2 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 40(1)(d). 4 See n 1.
I quantify the tenants’ loss of amenity at 20 per cent of the weekly rent for the period 29 May to 23 October 2025. The provisional amount I would order for this is $1,308.57.

Did the landlord fail to address a sewage leak issue?

The tenants say they experienced a problem with the sewage management at the property. However, I am not persuaded that the evidence shows the landlord breached their maintenance obligations in that regard.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach their smoke alarm duties?

The tenants claimed the premises did not have a compliant smoke alarm. However, the landlord provided a photograph showing that the bedroom had a smoke alarm.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach the HHS?

The tenants say their sleepout breached the Healthy Homes Standards for water ingress, insulation, and draft-stopping. Water ingress
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), requires that landlords comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
All private rentals must comply with the HHS by 1 July 2025.
The ceiling and window leaks have been dealt with above under the landlord’s reasonable state of repair duty.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that other than the ceiling leak that the premises did not comply with the water ingress standard. Insulation and draft stopping
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The tenants images included images of a hole in the floor through which bare ground can be seen. Ms Zhou explained that the holes were due to accommodate a gas heater’s pipes. The gas heater and the pipes had been removed leaving the hole and there was no insulation in the area also because of the decommissioned heater.
The tenants say there were also two holes in the bathroom floor. They did not report the holes to the landlord but used building foam sealer to prevent the draft.
The tenants submitted photographs that showed the sleepout’s ceiling did not have insulation. Conclusion
I am satisfied that the premises did not strictly comply with HHS for insulation and draft- stopping due in part to the landlord removing a gas heater and not filling the resulting hole or ensuring the area was insulated. The sleepout’s ceiling cavity is narrow. I am not confident on the evidence that the ceiling was accessible for installing insulation, however. I do not find the landlord in breach in that regard.
I would be minded to ordering compensation for loss of amenity in the premises at the rate of $10.00 per week for the period 8 April to 8 December 2025, which would amount to $350.00.

How much do the tenants owe for power?

The landlord provided rent records and gave evidence about the cost of power that Ms Fletcher and Mr Edwards owe, which showed they owe the landlord $12.00 for power use.
The landlord does not seek payment from the tenants who appeared at the hearing. Break-lease expenses
The landlord seeks to recover $800.00 for the expenses it incurred to relet the premises. 5
I am satisfied that the landlord reasonably incurred the expenses to re-tenant the premises following Ms Fletcher and Mr Edwards moving out and ceasing to pay rent.
The general rule is that all of the tenants are jointly liable for these expenses. However, I have decided that only Ms Fletcher and Mr Edwards should be liable as they were primarily responsible for the premises having to be relet and because of the other matters that will be discussed below. 6

Did the tenants meet their move-out duties?

At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 7
I am satisfied that a set of curtains and curtail rail were missing from the main house at the end of the tenancy.
Ms Fletcher and Mr Edwards must pay the landlord $260.00 for the cost to replace the missing items.
Ms [tenant’s surname] and Mr [tenant’s surname] did not leave the lawns mown when they moved out on 8 December 2025. I accept the landlord incurred a cost of $180.00 to have the lawns mowed. For the reasons discussed below, the other tenants will not be required to pay the landlord anything for that cost. 5 RTA s 44A(1). 6 RTA s 85. 7 RTA s 40(1)(e).
The landlord claimed $100.00 from the other tenants for the for the property manager having to conduct a separate inspection of the sleepout. The further inspection was required because the tenants remained in the sleepout for a while after the landlord found replacement tenants.
I am not satisfied the landlord incurred a loss by carrying out a separate inspection of the sleepout. This cost is a charge for a property manager’s time, acting as agent for the landlord. It was not charged to Keah, the principal. I decline to make an order for the $100.00 claimed.

How much rent do the tenants owe?

The landlord provided a rent summary that shows the tenants jointly all owe the landlord $8,071.42 for rent arrears.
The great majority of the rent arrears arise from Ms Fletcher and Mr Edwards failure to pay rent. Because the tenancy was for a fixed term they were liable to pay rent even though they had moved out. Their obligation only ended when the landlord re-tenanted the premises. The “other tenants” situation – joint liability for arrears and other expenses?
Ms [tenant’s surname] and Mr [tenant’s surname] continued to pay their agreed share of the rent of $300.00, but in law they are equally liable for the full amount of the arrears of $8,071.42 because all tenants are prima facie jointly and severally liable under the tenancy agreement.
However, the Tribunal is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights so long as it determines the dispute in accordance with the general principles of law and substantial merits and justice of the case. Section 85(2) of the RTA provides: (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities
There is an element of unfairness in holding these tenants liable for the full amount of the arrears, break costs, and the cost to replace chattels in the main house.
For their counterclaim against the landlord, I found the landlord liable to them in the amount of $1,658.57. The figure is $1,478.57 once $180.00 is deducted for the tenants not leaving the lawns tidy.
The tenants contributed $1,750.00 to the bond. If the $1,478.57 is applied to set off the tenants’ debt and these $1,750.00 is released to the landlord, these tenants will have effectively contributed $3,228.57 to the rent arrears and other costs.
In my view, in fairness that amount is a sufficient contribution by Ms [tenant’s surname] and Mr [tenant’s surname] to fully satisfy their debt to the landlord.
Therefore, I find that these tenants are not liable to the landlord beyond the bond and the set-off amount of $1,478.57.
The end result is that these tenants do have to pay the landlord anything more than the bond and that the landlord does not owe these tenants anything for the breaches discussed above. Filing fee
Ms Fletcher and Mr Edwards must reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. 8 Non-publication
The other tenants seek non-publication of their identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 9
The other tenants have been substantially successful in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or justified by the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is allowed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5351901 — Rent arrears at Flat B, 112 Postman Road, Dairy Flat, Auckland 0794

Tenancy Tribunal case 5351901 — Rent arrears at Flat B, 112 Postman Road, Dairy Flat, Auckland 0794

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord liable to the tenants for leaks?

Did the landlord fail to address a sewage leak issue?

Did the landlord breach their smoke alarm duties?

Did the landlord breach the HHS?

How much do the tenants owe for power?

Did the tenants meet their move-out duties?

How much rent do the tenants owe?

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord liable to the tenants for leaks?

Did the landlord fail to address a sewage leak issue?

Did the landlord breach their smoke alarm duties?

Did the landlord breach the HHS?

How much do the tenants owe for power?

Did the tenants meet their move-out duties?

How much rent do the tenants owe?