What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5355143 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5355143?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5355143?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5355143?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12795612-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5355143 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5355143?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5355143?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5355143?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12795612-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

202 Te Rangitautahanga Road, Turangi, Turangi 3334 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5355143 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

On 29 September 2025, the tenant filed an application seeking a market rent review and work orders for repairs to a hot water cylinder and leak in the garage.

The hearing proceeded by way of telephone conference. The tenant appeared. Mr Raumati appeared for the landlord.

At the hearing, the tenant confirmed the hot water cylinder had been repaired and that claim was no longer being persued. Relevant legal considerations

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).

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.

This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

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. Clarification of the parties

At the commencement of the hearing the Tribunal made enquires with the tenant to correctly identify the respondent to the claim. The claim had been made against Colliers New Zealand Limited Carl Raumati.

The Tribunal established that Carl Raumati is an employee of Colliers New Zealand Limited. Colliers New Zealand Limited are agents for the landlord and the landlord is the Ministry of Education.

The tenant confirmed that she intended for the claim to be brought against Colliers New Zealand Limited as Agent for the Ministry of Education and not Colliers New Zealand Limited Carl Raumati.

The respondent’s details were amended accordingly.

Is the rent too high?

The tenant seeks a market rent determination on the following grounds: a. There has been a disproportionate rent increase across the history of the tenancy from $180.00 per week to $360.00 per week. b. The property is an unrenovated former power board cottage or state home. The condition of the property does not reflect the amount of rent charged. c. The rent changed by the landlord is inequitable – some of the landlord’s tenants are charged no or very low rents while others pay higher rents. d. The rent charged does not reflect the Kaupapa of teacher housing. That is, to provide affordable accommodation in areas where it is hard to attract and retain registered teachers in low decile areas and rural schools.

The Tribunal does not interfere with rents. It has no general discretion to do so. The only way rent can be reduced is if the tenant applies for a market rent determination under section 25 of the Act.

Section 25 of the Act has a strict time frame and states that a market rent determination must be made no later than three months after the fixed term tenancy started or after the last rent review.

The rent for this tenancy has been $ $675.00 per fortnight ($360.00 per week less the registered teacher discount) since 14 September 2024. The application for market rent determination is made out of time and the claim is dismissed.

Should the Tribunal make a work order?

The tenant stated that there is an ongoing leak in the garage that she wants fixed.

The tenant stated that in 2022 there was a major leak in the garage which damaged and destroyed some of her possessions and teaching resources. The tenant said the leak was repaired by the landlord’s contractors and she was paid compensation for the damage and destruction of her possessions.

However, the tenant claimed the leak in the garage was never fully resolved and continued to leak, worsening over the past three to four months. The tenant said that the leak causes water to pool on the garage floor (in particular the back right hand corner of the garage) and has creating a moist damp environment leading to mould and mildew build up.

The tenant claims that she has consistently reported the issue of the leak to the landlord. The most recent complaints were sent via e-mail on 7 October 2025, which the landlord failed to respond to, and then again on 4 November 2025. The tenant said the landlord’s contractor came to the property on 24 November 2025; however, the leak was not repaired and it remains an ongoing issue.

The landlord refutes the tenant’s claims that the garage leak was not repaired and that the tenant continued to raise this as an issue. The landlord said they have traversed their records (at least two different e-mail address for correspondence) and the first time the tenant raised the issue of a leak in the garage (following the 2022 repairs) was on 4 November 2025.

The landlord said that after receiving this e-mail they immediately followed up with the tenant asking for photographs of the leak to be provided. The landlord said it took the tenant nine days to provide the requested photographs which appeared to show water on the floor in the corner of the garage.

The landlord said that on 18 November 2025 their contractor visited the property and tried unsuccessfully to locate the leak. The landlord said that repairs could not be undertaken as the leak was undetectable.

The landlord stated that if there is a leak then they would repair it as they do not want unhappy teachers living in their properties.

Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca)of the Act, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.

Where the Tribunal finds, the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) of the Act.

If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) of the Act.

A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) of the Act.

In this case the tenant has not provided the Tribunal with any photographic evidence of the location of the leak or evidence of the leak. Nor has the tenant provided the Tribunal with evidence of ongoing communication between herself and the landlord reporting the maintenance issue and asking for the leak to be repaired. The Tribunal notes that the landlord acted quickly to arrange for a contractor to attend the property once a photograph of the water on the garage floor was provided by the contractor was unable to find evidence of, or location of the leak.

This is the tenants’ claim to prove. Based on the available evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the landlord has breached their obligations under the Act and the claim is dismissed.

Reasons