What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5380424 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details

How much money was awarded in case 5380424?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5380424?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5380424?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13205593-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5380424 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details

How much money was awarded in case 5380424?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5380424?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5380424?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13205593-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5380424 — Leaks

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The applicant (tenant) did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time, request an adjournment, or notify the Tribunal the matter has settled. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord attended the hearing albeit she joined the hearing late.
I am satisfied that the hearing notice was properly served on the parties. The parties were both notified in the notice of hearing how to join the hearing, either by video or by telephone.
As the applicant in the proceedings the tenant is required to establish her claim on the balance of probabilities. That means she must prove that what she is claiming is more likely than not.
Where an applicant is absent the Tribunal may hear and determine, or dismiss or adjourn a claim 1 .
The tenant’s claim was filed on 4 November 2025 which is the same day that the landlord’s claim (5323319) was heard and determined. The Adjudicator determining the landlord’s claim has not referred in his order to the tenant’s application, even though the tenant’s application number is recorded at the top of the order.
I am satisfied that the previous Tenancy order determines only the landlord’s application (5323319).
The tenant claims refund of the bond, that the premises is not healthy as it has gaps in the windows and leaks in five rooms and that the landlord has withheld $260.00 of her money.
I am not able to consider any application relating to payment of the bond as the Tribunal’s previous order under 5323319 determines how the bond is to paid. If either party has any issue with the order for distribution of the bond they need to file a rehearing against that order.
The landlord denies liability for any part of the tenant’s claim. In dismissing the tenant’s application I am satisfied from the landlord’s evidence that: a. In relation to the tenant’s claim that the premises is not healthy: The premises passed a Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) inspection on 19 June 2025, completed immediately after the tenant vacated. The report confirms that the premises meets all HHS including that it is draught fee. b. In relation to the tenant’s claim that the roof leaked in five rooms: the landlord agrees there was a leak in the conservatory/sunroom area at one end of the dining room on 8 April 2025 as a result of a significant weather event. The landlord said she arranged contractors to repair the leak soon after she was informed it was leaking. The landlord said she had not received any notification or complaints from the tenant that any of the other rooms listed had leaked during the tenancy.
The tenant did not provide any evidence supporting her claims set out in a. and b. above.
The tenant claims the landlord has withheld $260.00 of the landlord’s money. The landlord denies this is the case and regardless, is not aware of what the $260.00 may be for.
As the tenant has failed to attend and prove her claim, the tenant’s application is dismissed. 1 See section 92 RTA
Suppression: Order 5323319 ordered that the parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published. As that order is referred to in this order the same non-publication order must apply.

Reasons

The applicant (tenant) did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time, request an adjournment, or notify the Tribunal the matter has settled. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord attended the hearing albeit she joined the hearing late.

I am satisfied that the hearing notice was properly served on the parties. The parties were both notified in the notice of hearing how to join the hearing, either by video or by telephone.

As the applicant in the proceedings the tenant is required to establish her claim on the balance of probabilities. That means she must prove that what she is claiming is more likely than not.

Where an applicant is absent the Tribunal may hear and determine, or dismiss or adjourn a claim 1 .

The tenant’s claim was filed on 4 November 2025 which is the same day that the landlord’s claim (5323319) was heard and determined. The Adjudicator determining the landlord’s claim has not referred in his order to the tenant’s application, even though the tenant’s application number is recorded at the top of the order.

I am satisfied that the previous Tenancy order determines only the landlord’s application (5323319).

The tenant claims refund of the bond, that the premises is not healthy as it has gaps in the windows and leaks in five rooms and that the landlord has withheld $260.00 of her money.

I am not able to consider any application relating to payment of the bond as the Tribunal’s previous order under 5323319 determines how the bond is to paid. If either party has any issue with the order for distribution of the bond they need to file a rehearing against that order.

The landlord denies liability for any part of the tenant’s claim. In dismissing the tenant’s application I am satisfied from the landlord’s evidence that: a. In relation to the tenant’s claim that the premises is not healthy: The premises passed a Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) inspection on 19 June 2025, completed immediately after the tenant vacated. The report confirms that the premises meets all HHS including that it is draught fee. b. In relation to the tenant’s claim that the roof leaked in five rooms: the landlord agrees there was a leak in the conservatory/sunroom area at one end of the dining room on 8 April 2025 as a result of a significant weather event. The landlord said she arranged contractors to repair the leak soon after she was informed it was leaking. The landlord said she had not received any notification or complaints from the tenant that any of the other rooms listed had leaked during the tenancy.

The tenant did not provide any evidence supporting her claims set out in a. and b. above.

The tenant claims the landlord has withheld $260.00 of the landlord’s money. The landlord denies this is the case and regardless, is not aware of what the $260.00 may be for.

As the tenant has failed to attend and prove her claim, the tenant’s application is dismissed. 1 See section 92 RTA

Suppression: Order 5323319 ordered that the parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published. As that order is referred to in this order the same non-publication order must apply.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5380424 — Leaks

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5380424 — Leaks

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions