What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5402729 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 5402729?

Compensation: Loss of amenity becaus…: $1,896.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5402729?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5402729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13841479-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5402729 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 5402729?

Compensation: Loss of amenity becaus…: $1,896.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5402729?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5402729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13841479-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

40 Dalmeny Street, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5402729 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5402729 — net $4,424.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of amenity because of water leaks	$1,896.00	Loss of amenity because of water leaks
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide and maintain premises	$2,500.00	Failure to provide and maintain premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,424.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,424.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenancy began on 18 August 2025 and ended on 29 December 2025 when the tenants were release form a fixed term tenancy by the landlord.

The tenant claimed exemplary damages because the landlord failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable sate of repair and claimed compensation for loss of amenity.

Did the landlord fail to provide and maintained the premises?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986,RTA.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The District Court has confirmed that when there are multiple claims for a breach under a single section (section 45 here), then only one order of exemplary damages can be made. I will therefore address the claims for exemplary damages for breaches of section 45 below. Roof leak

When the tenant moved in the kitchen ceiling was in the process of being repaired as a leak had been found when insulation was installed in the roof. The leak was found to be pin holes, and a rust mark a which were siliconed and the ceiling repaired.

On 13 November the tenants discovered that the area was leaking again and contacted the builder from EMP maintenance directly who returned on 18 November and siliconed fresh pin holes and reported that there were some rust areas.

On 19 November EMP emailed the landlord with some options to fix the ongoing leak problems which included cleaning and repainting and replacing the fixings The priority in their opinion was to seal existing holes over the kitchen and living room to stop the water getting in and prevent further deterioration.

EMP provided the landlord with three repair options. These were forwarded to the owner on 21 November 2025, advising that the roof is ‘in a condition where leaks will damage framing and insulation.’

The owner replied that they were not able to do that at this stage.

The landlord said that because the tenants dealt directly with EMP they did not know about the first leak until 25 November 2025 and organised for EMP to repair the roof again by silicone the new holes.

On 3 December 2025 two new leaks appeared, one in the kitchen and one over the fireplace. Videos of all the leaks were provided. EMP attended on 5 December 2025 and repaired further holes.

[The party] of the leaks were disputed by the landlord and the tenants agree that the landlord acted quickly and appropriately when notified of the problems.

The claim is that the premises were not provided in a reasonable state of repair because the roof kept leaking whenever there was heavy rain which resulted in silicone fixes. A roof should be able to withstand heavy rain without regularly leaking. It was clear that this was a problem prior to the start of the tenancy, it continued on during the tenancy and ultimately was a contributing factor to ending the tenancy. At no point was a roofing specialist employed to assess the damage, or a more permanent fix considered by the owner.

I find that the roof was not in a reasonable state of repair at the start of the tenancy. Despite the quick notification of problems by the tenants ,the best efforts of the landlord and continuing silicone of new holes by EMP the roof continued to fail.

As early as 19 November 2025 the owner was informed of the issue and recommendations from EMP were declined.

I find they have committed an unlawful act by not providing the roof in a reasonable sate of repair. Shower door

It was not disputed that for the entire tenancy the shower doors did not close properly. This resulted in water coming through and onto the floor whenever it was used. A photograph was provided, and the tenants conformed that at each shower an extra towel was required to mop up. At the end of the tenancy the doors were still not fixed.

I find the landlord failed to provide and maintain the shower doors in a reasonable state of repair. Vanity leak

The vanity in the bathroom leaked. The landlord was made aware of this on 18 August and Lazer plumbing were engaged to repair this as well as issues with the water pressure and kitchen sink. The tenants contacted the landlord 31 August 2025 saying the leak had not been fixed. Lazer plumbing said that they had.

The landlord discovered this had not occurred after being told it had and escalated the matter resulting in a credit of the bill for the work not done and the leak repaired on 16 September 2025.

I find that they have committed an unlawful act by failing to maintain the vanity plumbing. Airconditioning unit.

The tenants were very concerned about the air-conditioning unit that they said smelled when used to cool the premises. This was a second hand unit that was installed on 13 August 2025 by Gardner Air.

The tenants said that they first noticed this on 24 November 2025.

On 27 November a technician for Kuysten and Co attended the premises and cleaned the unit. A copy of the invoice to the landlord was provided, but no written report was supplied when the tenants asked for one.

The invoice stated that the air conditioner had a very bad smell, clogged filters and mould on the coil which was partially blocked. The unit was cleaned disinfected and serviced. The invoice noted that ‘a normal service does not usually take this long, but due to the mould and dust it took longer’.

The tenants said this was very concerning to them as they had children in the premises including a newborn that was hospitalised for breathing issues. A copy of the admission letter was provided.

The tenants said that they were given medical advice to leave the premises which they did from 9 to 14 of December. The tenants gave notice to end the tenancy on 8 December and said that they bought a heater and did not use the air conditioner again.

The landlord said that she was not aware that they had left for this period of time and agreed to release the tenant from the fixed term tenancy without any cost being claimed.

The original installer Mr Gardner serviced and cleaned the air conditioner on 11 December 2025. Photographs from this process showed dirty water and light sediment.

Mr Garner was called as a witness during the hearing and confirmed that he had originally installed the air-conditioner and had serviced it from new .He said it was fit for purpose when it was sold otherwise, he would not have recommended it. He confirmed that it had been cleaned and serviced when it was installed and was in good working order at the start of the tenancy. He said that it had been bought from a small business break room and he could guarantee that it had been smoke free environment.

Mr Gardner said that an air conditioner unit should be deep cleaned every 2-3 years, and it can require cleaning every 3-6 months depending on the use and household. He said it was very hard to give a time frame for cleaning as it can be from 1 month to 10 years. He confirmed that environmental factors contribute to this.

This claim is that the landlord failed to provide and maintain the air-conditioning unit. The tenants said that there were no noticeable issues with the unit when it was heating and this changed when it was cooling. When notified the landlord acted within a reasonable time frame and had the unit cleaned and serviced.

The tenants said that they were told their child’s illness was environmental and they stopped using the unit. They also believed that due to the damp conditions in the house the air conditioner could not keep up.

This was raised with Mr Gardner who could not confirm if this would have such an effect on the condition of the air conditioner.

I do not find that there was enough evidence to establish that the landlord failed to maintain the air conditioner as they acted promptly to have it serviced after concerns were raised.

The Tribunal has to make its findings of fact on the best evidence available to it. When considering if the air conditioner was not in a reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy there is the report from the servicing 4 months into the tenancy and the verbal evidence of Mr Gardner the original installer.

It is difficult to find that the unit was not provided in a reasonable condition as the tenants first notice the issues 4 months into the tenancy. Their concern was raised when it was found to be mouldy and dusty and that they had been using it in this condition. It is clear that the air conditioner required cleaning, but I do not find that there is enough evidence to establish that it was not provided in reasonable condition.

This claim is dismissed.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I have found that there were 3 breaches under this section.

The landlord knew of the issues with the roof and recommendations but was unable to get the owner’s consent to any significant repairs. It appears that the landlord was not financially able to repair the roof properly, but this is no excuse. The leaks in the vanity and shower doors were also known and either slow to resolve or not resolved. The consequences for the tenants were that they were living in leaky premises with a constantly wet bathroom and serious concerns for their family’s health.

It is in the public interest that landlords and owners must know and comply with the requirements of the RTA to ensure healthy warm dry homes for tenants. I am satisfied that it would be just to award $2500.00 for these breaches.

Can compensation be awarded?

The tenants said that due to the condition of the premises they were not able to enjoy the tenancy because; a) They had on ongoing leaks in kitchen and fireplace. b) Had a shower door that was never fixed. c) Had delays in fixing the vanity leak. d) The heat pump required cleaning. e) They moved out for 5 days for their child’s health. f) The premises were damp and caused them stress and concern.

These unresolved maintenance issues and leaks interfered with the tenants to use and benefit from the tenancy, and they sought compensation for this.

An award of compensation for loss of amenity can be awarded because I have found that there was a breach of the RTA by the landlord resulting in the loss of benefit use and enjoyment of the premises.

The roof and shower were never resolved for the 4 months and 11 days of the tenancy and the vanity took a month to fix. I find that there was a loss as the tenants were paying rent for a premises that they could not use as intended.

I find $100.00 per week for the duration of the tenancy is a fair compensation, for the shower and roof leaks and $20.00 per week for the vanity for a month, making a total of $1896.00.

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

Both parties requested suppression. The tenants are entitled to this by right. The landlord requested that their property management company name be suppressed, and the landlords name be published as they acted promptly in addressing issues as best they could. It has been recorded in this order where the property acted appropriately. Having weighted up the interest of the parties versus the public interest I do not consider it justified to order name suppression for the landlord .

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5402729 — net $4,424.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of amenity because of water leaks	$1,896.00	Loss of amenity because of water leaks
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide and maintain premises	$2,500.00	Failure to provide and maintain premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,424.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,424.00