What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5381143 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 5381143?

Compensation: Failure to maintain en…: $640.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5381143?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5381143?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13113395-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5381143 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 5381143?

Compensation: Failure to maintain en…: $640.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5381143?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5381143?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13113395-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

7 Pimelea Street, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5381143 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5381143 — net $668.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain ensuite shower	$640.00	Failure to maintain ensuite shower
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$668.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$668.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Realty Focus Limited As Agent For Property Investments Ltd - Gordon & Barbara Laing must pay [The applicant/s] $668.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 12 February 2026.
The tenancy began on 25 August 2021 and ended on 31 October 2025. The tenant claims the landlord did not maintain the shower in the ensuite in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant seeks compensation.
As the applicant, the tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

The law

Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires a landlord to 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 they are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
A landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy it. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach. 2 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 3 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 3 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4].
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 4 Analysis
The tenant claims the roller doors in the ensuite shower did not work properly and they alerted the landlord to this on 25 March 2025 during a routine inspection. The tenant described the issue as being one where the roller doors would fall off their tracks when opening or closing. The tenant also gave evidence the rollers were corroded.
The landlord gave evidence that the property manager who completed the routine inspection no longer works at Realty Focus Limited however, the notes on the inspection report state: Tenant has trouble with shower door coming off the tracks occasionally. Just wanted it noted.
The evidence of the tenant and landlord convinces me that the roller doors were not working properly on 25 March 2025. I find this to be the date the landlord first became aware of the issue.
The parties gave conflicting evidence about whether the tenant asked for the roller doors to be repaired or simply asked for the issue to be noted. The landlord claims the tenant only asked for the issue to be noted. The tenant claims this is incorrect and that they impressed upon the property manager the safety risk posed by the doors and the inconvenience in not being able to use the shower properly.
A landlord’s obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a reasonable timeframe is triggered by knowledge of the problem, not a request by the tenant for repair. Whether the tenant asked for the roller doors to be repaired or simply asked for the problem to be noted is not particularly relevant. The landlord’s duty to investigate and remedy the roller doors was triggered as soon as they became aware of the issue on 25 March 2025.
The landlord completed an inspection of the premises on 23 September 2025 and noted that the bottom rollers on the shower doors were quite badly rusted. The landlord organised for a tradesperson to visit the premises on 16 October 2025. The tradesperson removed the roller doors however, the replacement rollers were not a proper fit. By the time the correct rollers were ordered and received, the tenancy had already ended.
There is a delay of approximately 32 weeks between 25 March 2025, which is the date the landlord first became aware of the faulty roller doors and 31 October 2025, which is the date the tenancy ended. The premises have a second 4 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. bathroom with a shower that the tenant was able to use however, I still find a delay of 32 weeks to fix the roller doors in the ensuite shower to be unreasonable. I find the landlord failed to maintain the shower doors in the ensuite bathroom in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach. I find $20.00 per week to be reasonable. In settling on this amount, I have had regard to the following factors. a. The breach endured for 32 weeks, which is a relatively lengthy period of time. b. The shower was technically usable for the majority of the tenancy, except the last two weeks. c. Although the shower was usable, I accept the tenant’s evidence that they were not able to use it in the usual way. The tenant gave evidence that they had to shower with the doors open to avoid damaging the roller doors or causing them to fall off their tracks. This was not comfortable or convenient. The tenant also gave evidence that they did not let their child use the shower, because of safety concerns around the doors falling off. d. The tenant was not able to use the shower at all for the last two weeks of the tenancy. Fortunately, there was a second bathroom in the premises with a shower that the tenant was able to use for this period of time. e. The case of Tenant v Utrust Property Management Limited as agent for Dunyun Liu [2025] NZTT 5294600, 5326023. This case was referred to me by the landlord. The premises had two bathrooms, including a main bathroom and ensuite. The shower in the main bathroom was not able to be used for 6 months. The Tribunal ordered compensation at a rate of $20.00 per week for the landlord’s failure to maintain the main bathroom in a reasonable state of repair. The case of Tenant v Utrust Property Management Limited as agent for Dunyun Liu is similar to the present case, although arguable more serious, as the shower in the present case was at least usable for most of the period between 25 March 2025 – 31 October 2025. Notwithstanding this difference, I find the lack of amenity suffered by the tenant in having to shower with the doors open to be high.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $640.00 in total. Filing fee & name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I must grant their request for name suppression.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5381143 — net $668.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain ensuite shower	$640.00	Failure to maintain ensuite shower
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$668.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$668.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Realty Focus Limited As Agent For Property Investments Ltd - Gordon & Barbara Laing must pay [The applicant/s] $668.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 12 February 2026.
The tenancy began on 25 August 2021 and ended on 31 October 2025. The tenant claims the landlord did not maintain the shower in the ensuite in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant seeks compensation.
As the applicant, the tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

The law

Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires a landlord to 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 they are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
A landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy it. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach. 2 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 3 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 3 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4].
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 4 Analysis
The tenant claims the roller doors in the ensuite shower did not work properly and they alerted the landlord to this on 25 March 2025 during a routine inspection. The tenant described the issue as being one where the roller doors would fall off their tracks when opening or closing. The tenant also gave evidence the rollers were corroded.
The landlord gave evidence that the property manager who completed the routine inspection no longer works at Realty Focus Limited however, the notes on the inspection report state: Tenant has trouble with shower door coming off the tracks occasionally. Just wanted it noted.
The evidence of the tenant and landlord convinces me that the roller doors were not working properly on 25 March 2025. I find this to be the date the landlord first became aware of the issue.
The parties gave conflicting evidence about whether the tenant asked for the roller doors to be repaired or simply asked for the issue to be noted. The landlord claims the tenant only asked for the issue to be noted. The tenant claims this is incorrect and that they impressed upon the property manager the safety risk posed by the doors and the inconvenience in not being able to use the shower properly.
A landlord’s obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a reasonable timeframe is triggered by knowledge of the problem, not a request by the tenant for repair. Whether the tenant asked for the roller doors to be repaired or simply asked for the problem to be noted is not particularly relevant. The landlord’s duty to investigate and remedy the roller doors was triggered as soon as they became aware of the issue on 25 March 2025.
The landlord completed an inspection of the premises on 23 September 2025 and noted that the bottom rollers on the shower doors were quite badly rusted. The landlord organised for a tradesperson to visit the premises on 16 October 2025. The tradesperson removed the roller doors however, the replacement rollers were not a proper fit. By the time the correct rollers were ordered and received, the tenancy had already ended.
There is a delay of approximately 32 weeks between 25 March 2025, which is the date the landlord first became aware of the faulty roller doors and 31 October 2025, which is the date the tenancy ended. The premises have a second 4 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. bathroom with a shower that the tenant was able to use however, I still find a delay of 32 weeks to fix the roller doors in the ensuite shower to be unreasonable. I find the landlord failed to maintain the shower doors in the ensuite bathroom in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach. I find $20.00 per week to be reasonable. In settling on this amount, I have had regard to the following factors. a. The breach endured for 32 weeks, which is a relatively lengthy period of time. b. The shower was technically usable for the majority of the tenancy, except the last two weeks. c. Although the shower was usable, I accept the tenant’s evidence that they were not able to use it in the usual way. The tenant gave evidence that they had to shower with the doors open to avoid damaging the roller doors or causing them to fall off their tracks. This was not comfortable or convenient. The tenant also gave evidence that they did not let their child use the shower, because of safety concerns around the doors falling off. d. The tenant was not able to use the shower at all for the last two weeks of the tenancy. Fortunately, there was a second bathroom in the premises with a shower that the tenant was able to use for this period of time. e. The case of Tenant v Utrust Property Management Limited as agent for Dunyun Liu [2025] NZTT 5294600, 5326023. This case was referred to me by the landlord. The premises had two bathrooms, including a main bathroom and ensuite. The shower in the main bathroom was not able to be used for 6 months. The Tribunal ordered compensation at a rate of $20.00 per week for the landlord’s failure to maintain the main bathroom in a reasonable state of repair. The case of Tenant v Utrust Property Management Limited as agent for Dunyun Liu is similar to the present case, although arguable more serious, as the shower in the present case was at least usable for most of the period between 25 March 2025 – 31 October 2025. Notwithstanding this difference, I find the lack of amenity suffered by the tenant in having to shower with the doors open to be high.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $640.00 in total. Filing fee & name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I must grant their request for name suppression.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5381143 — State of repair at 7 Pimelea Street, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5381143 — State of repair at 7 Pimelea Street, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions