What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5352950 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 5352950?

Compensation: Floorboards: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Roof: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5352950?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5352950?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13345690-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5352950 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 5352950?

Compensation: Floorboards: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Roof: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5352950?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5352950?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13345690-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5352950 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5352950 — net $2,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: roof	$1,000.00	roof
Compensation: floorboards	$1,000.00	floorboards
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,028.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,028.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5352950 — net $2,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: roof	$1,000.00	roof
Compensation: floorboards	$1,000.00	floorboards
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,028.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,028.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of the tenants and the some information of the landlord’s family.
Bartley Real Estate Limited As Agent For Nazrene Khanam must pay [The tenant/s] $1,528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The owner’s son spoke on her behalf, and Ms Kuvunavanua appeared from the property management agency.
The tenants seek compensation for issues that arose during their tenancy, which began on 31 March 2023 and ended on 15 August 2025.
At the start of the tenancy, there was a different property manager. Ms Kubunanavua took over management early in 2025. The tenants said that from the time she managed the property, she addressed their issues promptly and were grateful for her attention.
The tenants seek over $10,000 compensation. They say that the landlords breached the Healthy Homes Standards because of the following complaints: a. the roof leaked b. there were rotting floorboards in the bathroom and toilet c. there were rats, ants and whitetail spiders d. the carpet was damp and smelt of cat’s urine
The tenants also say that the notice to terminate was retaliatory and was invalid.
No application has been made for exemplary damages.
The onus is on the tenants to establish their claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.

Has the landlord breached the Healthy Homes Standards?

When tenants consider that a home has deficiencies, they often believe that it amounts to a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. Under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), landlords are required to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
There are five HHS: a. insulation b. ventilation c. draught-stopping d. heating e. moisture ingress and drainage.
Each of the standards sets out specific requirements and situations where a property may be exempt.
The onus is on the tenants to prove how any of the standards have been breached.
Although the tenants have complained about a leaking roof, the moisture ingress standard says that rental properties must have efficient drainage for the removal of storm water, surface water and ground water, including an appropriate outfall. That is a different issue from water coming in the property because of a leak.
Based on the information presented, there is no evidence that any of the HHS were breached. Rather, the complaints fit within the landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises.

Has the landlord failed to maintain the premises?

Under section 45 of the Act, a landlord must 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.
The tenants say that at the start of the tenancy they were aware that there were some issues and the property manager told them they would be fixed. Roof
There is no dispute that there were some issues with the roof leaking. Ms Kubunanavua produced a printout of communication and activity recorded in Tapi, which is a property maintenance software platform used by many property management companies to log and monitor repair and maintenance issues.
The first printout concerns a job logged before the start of the tenancy. On 2 February 2023, about 8 weeks before the tenants moved in, the then property manager submitted a job to JVD Plumbing and Electrical Ltd. It was headed “Roof leak and plumbing maintenance” and contained three items:
There appears to be a roof leak in bedroom 2 ... with wet and soft patches clearly visible on the ceiling.
I also noticed some patchy areas on the ceiling in Bedroom 3, could be historic but needs to be assessed as well.
The tenant has reported a leak around the toilet when it’s raining, not sure where it’s coming from but this will need to be fixed.
It is evident from the printout that the property manager had been in communication with the owner, who had approved some maintenance. The dates of those exchanges are not logged. The records simply say “3 years ago”. One of the messages sent to the owner says: Thank you for your prompt reply – I have sent a work order for a plumber to attend to have these assessed and fixed if possible. Depending on the condition of the roof and feedback from the plumber once he’s been, we may need to send a roofer. I have been in contact with Whanganui Roofing as well in the meantime and sent them some photos in case they will be needed.
The printout from Tapi then shows that on 27 March 2023, the property manager emailed “Jonny” asking for an invoice.
Neither the owner nor the property management company provided a copy of an invoice or proof of payment for any maintenance or any other record of maintenance undertaken at that time.
The tenants say that within about six months of the start of the tenancy, part of the ceiling in Bedroom 2 collapsed. Pieces of the ceiling and water fell into the room where rongoa products were being stored. Within three or four days, the ceiling was fixed.
The tenant’s recollection of the timing of this event does not align with the property management company’s records. They provided proof of a job logged on Tapi in February 2024.
This printout shows that on 28 February 2024, the property manager requested an urgent assessment of the roof, asking for the roof to be assessed with a quote for recommended repairs. It was noted: There have been previous leaks above the middle bedroom which have been patch-repaired but hoping for a more permanent solution if possible. The ceiling in the bedroom next to it has also recently started showing signs of deterioration an unsure if this could be linked to any previous or current leaks from the roof.
In the printout is a message from Mals Roofing to the first property manager. It is undated but marked as read on 13 August 2024. It says: Have done some Remedial work around the problem area and have told Tenant to keep an eye on it. The problem is that someone in their infinite wisdom 15+ years ago has sealed the laps on Tile Roofs around town, and now they are starting to leak.
A property manager then contacted the tenants to ask if there were any ongoing issues and they replied that the roof had been fine since the repair and they had no leaks since.
There was a further leak in 2025. This time it was in Bedroom 3. Water and ceiling debris fell on Mr W who is a wheelchair user. The property manager provided two invoices from early 2025 for a number of repairs. One, dated 20 February 2025, was for cutting out rotten pinex board and installing new gib board and another, dated 12 March 2025, included fixing broken floorboards in hallway/bathroom, sealing up rat holes, fixing hole in bedroom 1 ceiling and fixing big hole in gib board in children’s bedroom.
The tenants’ timeframes do not match up with the landlords, but the parties are agreed that each time a leak was reported, it was fixed within 3 or 4 days.
The evidence shows that the landlord was aware of possible leaks in both bedrooms in February 2023, before the tenancy began.
Ms Kuvunavanua was in the difficult position of trying to establish from the records kept on Tapi what action the landlord took. The owner’s son said that they undertook whatever maintenance they were informed of.
From the records provided, it seems that the property management company took steps to have the roof and ceiling assessed in February 2023, and asked for an invoice in March 2023, but there is no evidence that any assessment or repairs actually took place at that time. In a routine inspection report dated 15 November 2023, the following is recorded: We are still waiting for Wanganui Roofing to assess the roof which is causing the leaks through the bedroom ceiling. Still no news or updates...
The first evidence of assessment of the roof is in August 2024 after there had been a leak. I therefore find that between the start of the tenancy and August 2024 the landlord had been on notice that there was a probable leak in the roof and had taken insufficient steps to address it.
The next leak in 2025 had a greater impact on the tenant. It occurred about six months after the previous one. Although the landlord had taken steps to address the leaks, they were on notice that overall there was a problem with the roof and that the fix was unlikely to provide a permanent solution because of the sealant that had been used on the tile. It was not unreasonable for them to “wait and see”, but at the same time, they were aware that a risk of further leaks remained.
The impact of the second leak was that part of the ceiling collapsed and fell, along with water, on Mr W who was in bed. As noted above, he uses a wheelchair. This would have been very alarming and unsettling.
The tenants did not quantify their loss arising from damage to products for the first leak.
Although the leaks were repaired promptly, the impact on the tenants on each occasion was the collapse of part of the ceiling, bringing water and debris into the room, presumably from water collecting in the ceiling space. This would have been alarming and inconvenient. Given the concerns raised before the tenancy began, as recorded in the inspection report, and the statement made by the roof repairer that he had “done some Remedial work around the problem area and ... told Tenant to keep an eye on it”, this collapse was foreseeable.
Looked at overall, I have decided that the landlord should pay some compensation arising from the roof leaks and that is fixed at $1,000. Floorboards
The tenants say that there were rotting floorboards in the bathroom and toilet. The floor was soft and unstable.
The evidence that the landlord was aware of this is found in a routine inspection from 15 November 2023: Tenants have noticed a couple of soft floorboards underneath the carpet in the hallway, it appears to be along the walls on both sides around the bathroom/ toilet and the bedroom directly opposite to these areas. Would strongly recommend having the subfloor assessed as soon as possible to avoid potential damage.
In fact, an issue with the toilet was also raised in February 2023 by the previous tenants, as noted above: The tenant has reported a leak around the toilet when it’s raining, not sure where it’s coming from but this will need to be fixed.
This was in the job sent to JVD Plumbing & Electrical. There is no evidence that any action was taken to address the floorboards or issue around the toilet until 2025, when there was an invoice that included fixing broken floorboards in the hallway and bathroom.
The impact of the floorboards was significant because Mr W found that the commode over the toilet was unstable, as was the transfer to the bath. This meant that he was unable to use the toilet and bath.
It is unclear how often this was raised with the previous property manager. Mr Ta believed that every time he raised an issue their rent went up, but he did not produce any evidence of correspondence or communications to support that assertion. The rent summary shows that the rent was raised in May 2024 and again in May 2025.
When the issue was mentioned to Ms Kubunanavua, action was taken.
The landlord was aware of an issue with the floorboards at the start of the tenancy. No action was taken to remedy it until February or March 2025. The impact on the tenant was significant. I order $1,000 compensation for the failure to fix the floorboards for the first two years of the tenancy. Other maintenance issues
The tenants confirmed that when they raised concerns about rats, white tail spiders and ants, the issues were addressed. There is no claim for these.
The tenants say that the carpet under the heat pump smelt of cat urine and that this got worse during the tenancy.
Ms Kubunanavua said that she was not aware of this issue and could find no reference to it. The tenants gave no evidence of when it was raised. This claim is dismissed.

Was the notice given to the tenant retaliatory?

On 4 July 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 15 August 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory. An earlier notice had been given on 1 May 2025 and that had been withdrawn.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal of the tenant exercising a right or bringing a complaint around this time. Was the notice to terminate given when the landlord knew they were not entitled to do so?
The landlord gave the tenant 42 days’ notice to terminate. Usually a landlord must give 90 days, but the lesser period is allowed where the landlord or a member of his family is going to move in within 90 days of the termination. The notice said that the property manager had received notice from the owners that they wished to gain vacant possession of the premises to use as a principal place of residence by the owner or a member of their family.
Once the tenancy had terminated, the property management agency agreement ceased and so Ms Kubunanavua had no further dealings with the matter.
The tenants say that the person now occupying the property is not a member of the landlord’s family.
Section 60AA says that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to give the notice.
The owner’s son said that he and his wife were planning on moving into the property, but [details suppressed]. He decided it was better if they stayed with his family [ details suppressed] he would not be alone. At the same time, a close friend of theirs needed a place to live and so she then took over the property.
He provided the Tribunal with evidence that [details suppressed].
The tenants are understandably skeptical that the notice was given simply to enable the owner’s friend to move into the premises. However, the onus is on them to establish that at the time the notice was given, the owner knew they were not entitled to do so. They have not established that on the balance of probabilities and so this claim fails.
There is no order for reimbursement of removal costs or double payment of rent. Those matters are common occurrences when transferring accommodation and are not because of any breach of the landlord’s obligations under the Act.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and they are entitled to name suppression.
There is also an order for suppression of [evidence concerning the landlord’s family].

Tenancy Tribunal case 5352950 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5352950 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord breached the Healthy Homes Standards?

Has the landlord failed to maintain the premises?

Was the notice given to the tenant retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord breached the Healthy Homes Standards?

Has the landlord failed to maintain the premises?

Was the notice given to the tenant retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions