What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5358322 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 5358322?

Compensation: Oven: $361.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Woodburner: $190.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $713.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5358322?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5358322?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12773603-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5358322 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 5358322?

Compensation: Oven: $361.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Woodburner: $190.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $713.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5358322?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5358322?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12773603-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

21 Broadway, Mangaweka 4797 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5358322 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5358322. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 October 2025	$713.71		Rent arrears to 8 October 2025
Compensation: oven		$361.00	oven
Compensation: woodburner		$190.00	woodburner
Total award	$713.71	$551.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5358322. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 October 2025	$713.71		Rent arrears to 8 October 2025
Compensation: oven		$361.00	oven
Compensation: woodburner		$190.00	woodburner
Total award	$713.71	$551.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Based on the calculations in the table below, the Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Property Brokers Limited As Agent For John Frampton Caroline Wind: $513.71 [The tenant/s]: $1,006.29

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlord being represented by Ms Wind and Ms Simpson.
The tenancy ran from 6 July 2024 to 8 October 2024.
The tenant seeks a refund of the bond and compensation in relation to: a. faulty gas stove and oven b. breach of the Healthy Homes Standards in relation to ventilation c. faulty wood burner.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears.
The onus is on each party to prove their claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. That means that each party must provide sufficient evidence to persuade the Tribunal that each allegation is more likely than not to be true. Gas stove and ventilation standard
The oven and stove in the property were fuelled by gas bottles. The flint buttons on the stove and oven were not working when the tenant moved in. Because there was little fuel left in the gas bottles when the tenant moved in, she did not use the stove and did not raise it immediately. However, on 12 December 2024 during an inspection, the landlord was notified. She used matches to light the stove, but did not feel safe using matches to light the oven. She particularly wanted the oven fixed before Christmas and a child’s birthday so that she could make a cake.
The landlord tried to have the oven fixed, but there was some difficulty in getting a tradesperson there before Christmas. Eventually on 13 February 2025, a builder, Shane Hill attended. He gave evidence to the Tribunal and the landlord also produced a lengthy text from him. He detailed the required repairs, including three of the four igniter switches being broken and the gas burners being near the end of life. The connection to the outside bottles was quite loose.
Mr Hill recommended that the oven was replaced and the next day, he delivered an electric oven. The landlord said that the electrician installed it on 17 February 2025.
The landlord agreed that the tenant is entitled to some modest compensation for the faulty oven between 12 December and 13 February 2025
The tenant was perturbed to hear that the connection was loose and felt that she and her children had been exposed to gas. She considered it was a breach of Healthy Homes Standards and that the landlord should have undertaken proper checks, that there should have been a monitor installed to check on any possible gas leaks, and that there should have been ventilation in the kitchen.
Mr Hill confirmed that the loose connection was outside the property. He had not smelt gas.
The tenant has not established that the landlord was advised that there was a gas leak or that there was in fact a gas leak.
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with Healthy Homes Standards. These are set out in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity. (See regulation 23)
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. A kitchen or bathroom need not comply with regulation 23 if it is not reasonably practicable to install an extractor fan so as to comply with the requirements of regulation 23.
According to the HHS assessment dated 14 May 2024, the property complied with all HHS. The kitchen/living room is open plan. The report records that it was exempt from an exhaust system because it is not “practical” to install.
The landlord says that the reason for the exemption was because of the high ceiling and no roof cavity. The landlord also provided a copy of a quote from Porter Com dated 21 February 2024. It is a quote for a bathroom extractor fan. It also records “Rangehood not possible due to the layout/design of house not reasonably practicable”.
The photographs provided by the tenant show an oven within a bench that overlooks the living area. The stove does not back on to a wall. There is a pitched roof. It is evident that it would be very difficult to install a rangehood that is ducted to the outside.
The landlord has provided a Healthy Homes Statement that the property complies with HHS because it would not be reasonably practicable to install an exhaust system. The onus then shifts to the tenant to prove that is incorrect.
The tenant says that there is room on the wall to put an extractor fan. That may be true, but that would be unlikely to meet the Healthy Homes Standards. The tenant has not produced any evidence to prove that it would be reasonably practicable to install mechanical ventilation that would comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. She has not established her claim that the property did not comply.
The tenant felt that the landlord should have tested and monitored the gas emissions but could not point to any legal requirement for a landlord to test or monitor gas appliances. The state of the oven as described in February 2025 certainly raises questions about its condition in July 2024, seven months earlier. However, in the absence of any complaints from previous tenants or from this tenant before December 2024, the landlord was entitled to assume that the stove and oven was fully functioning. They do not need to compensate the tenant for any loss before 12 December 2024.
Through no fault of the landlord, there was some delay in fixing the problem. However, the tenant was renting a property that should have had a fully functioning oven. I have decided that the tenant should be compensated for the inconvenience during that period of 9½ weeks. The sum of $361.00 represents a 10% rent reduction of $38 per week for 9½ weeks. Drainage
During the hearing, the tenant raised concerns about flooding on the lawn. As noted by the landlord, this had not been raised in the application.
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.
If the tenant wants to pursue this claim, she may file a separate application. She must set out what the issue was and when she advised the landlord about it. If she claims there is a breach of a Healthy Homes Standard, she should ensure that she is familiar with the landlord’s requirements under the moisture ingress and drainage standard and be ready to persuade the Tribunal which aspect the landlord failed to comply with and what they should have done to remedy it. Woodburner
There was a fault with the door to the woodburner. The heat-resistant rope had come loose. She tried to use the QR code in the property to report this, but it was not working, so she followed it up. The landlord confirmed that they received phone calls on 17 June, 19 June, 23 June, and 15 July.
The tenant said that when someone finally came, they did not know about the door. They simply swept the chimney.
The landlord produced a work order dated 18 June in which they had asked for the chimney to be swept and for the door to be looked at. The supplier/selected quote was DK Plumbing. They received an invoice dated 22 July 2025 from DK Plumbing and assumed that the door had been fixed.
The tenant said that after the visit she could not use the wood burner at all. She did not let the landlord know that the door had not been fixed and that she could not use it. She said that she felt that nothing would be done.
There appears to have been a communication breakdown within DK Plumbing.
Reading the invoice from DK Plumbing, there is no mention of a repair to the woodburner door. If it was reviewed by the Property Manager when received, it might have raised questions about whether the issue of the door had been addressed. However, in the absence of any further contact from the tenant, it was not unreasonable to assume that it had been a minor issue and was now fixed.
The tenant has suffered further as a result of a miscommunication, but I do not find the landlord is responsible for that. Although the tenant felt frustrated with the landlord, she did not provide a further opportunity to them to remedy the situation.
The tenant was concerned that the fire-resistant rope contains asbestos. She produced no evidence to prove that exposure to the rope was harmful. She will be reassured if she looks at some websites about woodburners. It is likely that it is made of some sort of heat-resistant glass material. Even when a door is not broken, part of that will be visible/exposed.
I have decided that the tenant should be compensated for the faulty door between 18 June and 22 July 2025. She was still able to use the woodburner but it was inefficient. The landlord is to compensate her $190, representing a 10% rent reduction of $38 for 5 weeks. Landlord’s claim for rent
The landlord produced a rent summary showing that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant owed $713.71, being 1 week and 6 days. At times during the tenancy, the tenant had been in credit. She had mistakenly thought that the week in advance she paid at the start of the tenancy meant that she was a week in credit at all times. One week in advance simply means that the tenant pays for their accommodation before they use it, rather than afterwards. Once that week is over, they will fall into arrears if they do not immediately pay for the next week.
The landlord has proved the amount owed for rent arrears. Final comments
The tenant was understandably frustrated that the QR code did not work. It may be that such a tool saves the property management company when it works, but when it does not, it leads to delays and annoyance. Perhaps its use should be reviewed.
The bond is to be refunded to the tenant, less a small amount she owes in rent: Bond:$1,520.00 Compensation$ 551.00 Total$2,071.00 Less rent owed$713.71 Balance$1,357.29
Because both parties have had some success, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant sought name suppression. The landlord did not oppose that. She has had some success and so an order is made for the suppression of her name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5358322 — Rent arrears at 21 Broadway, Mangaweka 4797

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5358322 — Rent arrears at 21 Broadway, Mangaweka 4797

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions