What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407430 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 5407430?

Failure To Maintain Security Stays: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407430?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407430?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13444641-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407430 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 5407430?

Failure To Maintain Security Stays: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407430?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407430?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13444641-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5407430 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5407430 — net $178.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Failure to maintain security stays	$150.00	Failure to maintain security stays
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$178.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$178.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5407430 — net $178.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Failure to maintain security stays	$150.00	Failure to maintain security stays
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$178.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$178.00

Order

The table in the order dated 13 April 2026 contained a calculation error. The total amount payable by the landlord to the tenant is $178.00, not $78.00. The table has been amended to reflect this. No other changes have been made.

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the address of the property. 2.

Reasons

Ms Cawte and Ms Kneebone appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared.
The tenancy commenced on 31 May 2025 and is current. On 22 December 2025, the tenant filed a claim seeking compensation for the landlord failing to provide and maintain the property. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties advised that work orders were no longer sought, as the maintenance matters had been addressed.
The tenant’s claims are: i. The landlord failed to provide and maintain the following in a reasonable state of repair: a. Hot water delivery system, b. Drainage, c. Storage shed, d. Window security latches.
The tenant is seeking a rent reduction and compensation of $2,000.00 for loss of amenity. Claims
The tenant stated that the hot water in the shower had extreme temperature fluctuations. They first raised this issue on 24 June 2025. The next day, the landlord arranged for a plumber to inspect the shower mixer. However, the tenant said the issue was not resolved, and despite advising the landlord, there was no further response.
The tenant’s property is one of six units. In October 2025, the tenant discovered that other units were experiencing similar problems. The tenant contacted the Council, who sent contractors to investigate. The contractors found that all six units were sharing a single mains water connection and suggested splitting the feed inside each property to improve water pressure. The tenant believed they shared this information with the landlord but received no response. The tenant stated that on 22 December 2025, the same day they filed their application, a plumber for the landlord installed a separate water feed to the property. The tenant also noted that the pipe was left exposed until it was buried on 12 February 2026.
The landlord stated that on 27 June 2025, following the plumbers visit the tenant advised them that the issue had been resolved. The landlord said they were not made aware of any scalding issue until the first inspection on 31 October 2025. During that inspection, there was no mention of the Council’s findings.
On 03 November 2025, the landlord sent a second work order to their plumber. The plumber visited on 13 November 2025 and identified issues with the water supply and drainage. The landlord stated that the plumber was not aware of the Council’s findings. Once the quote was received, it was sent to the owner for approval, which was given in mid-December 2025. The plumber completed the first phase of the work, the water supply, on 22 December 2025.
The drainage repair was completed after the Christmas and New Year period, with both sets of pipes, which shared the same trench, being buried at the same time.
The tenant could not recall whether they shared the Council’s findings with the plumber or if they provided the Council’s report to the landlord. The landlord stated the units were built in the 1970s, that there was nothing inherently wrong with the water supply and that it complied with regulations at the time. The landlord believed that once they were properly advised of an issue, they responded appropriately and within a reasonable timeframe.
The tenant stated that during heavy rain, they noticed rainwater bubbling up from a soak hole, which caused water to pool and spill over the guttering. The tenant said they raised this issue with the property manager during the inspection on 31 October 2025 and also showed the property manager a short video. The tenant felt that the property manager was rude and abrupt in response.
The landlord stated that in June 2025, the tenant reported an issue with the guttering. The gutters were cleaned, and the downpipes flushed. The landlord was not advised of any ongoing problems until the inspection. The landlord said that the property manager who conducted the inspection immediately raised a work order with their plumber.
The plumber visited on 13 November 2025 and confirmed a drainage issue. The landlord explained that, with their permission, the tenant had built an aviary, which needed to be moved before the drainage work could be completed. The aviary was moved around 17 November 2025. The landlord stated that fixing the water supply was given priority and that completed on 22 December 2025, with the drainage work finished in early February 2026 after the Christmas and New Year period.
The tenant stated that the contractor who conducted the gutter cleaning in June 2025 had tested the downpipes and discovered that they were not connected to storm water drains. The landlord stated that this had not been reported, was not within the contractor’s scope of expertise, and reiterated that the property had complied with all regulations at the time of construction.
The tenant stated that there was a small storage on the property. The tenant stated they used the shed to store personal items. The tenant produced photographs taken on 16 January 2026 showing water collecting on some of the items. The tenant stated that the roofing was old and rusty in places. The tenant stated they could not recall when they had raised the issue but that a contractor had visited around 13 November 2025. The tenant stated that the contractor had advised that the issue may have been related to the drainage, which was subsequently addressed. At the time of the hearing, there had not been significant rain, and it was unclear whether the issue had been resolved.
The landlord agreed that the issue was being monitored. They denied that it had been raised early in the tenancy and the first time they had been made aware of the issue was during the inspection on 31 October 2025, after which they issued a work order.
The property had two damaged security stays in the main bedroom. The tenant stated that at the start of the tenancy, they asked for these to be repaired and for additional window security stays to be installed. On 07 November 2025, a contractor visited but said they were only instructed to repair some broken kitchen knobs, not the security stays. The tenant informed the landlord, who said a contractor would return. The contractor visited again in December 2025, installed stays in the bathroom and lounge, inspected the damaged stays in the bedroom, and said they would return to complete the repairs. However, the tenant stated that the contractor did not return until February 2026.
The landlord stated that the issue with the damaged security stays was not raised until the inspection on 31 October 2025. A work order was issued on 3 November 2025. The landlord said that on 7 November 2025, the contractor visited and installed stays on the windows in the lounge and bathroom but did not attend to those in the bedroom. The landlord reported that they followed up with the contractor twice, on 05 December 2025 and again in January 2026, and that the work was finally completed on 24 February 2026. The landlord could not explain the reason for the delay. Law
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
In Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV 2009 085-001431, 24 February 2010 the Court stated:
“I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair the defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”.
To establish a breach, the tenant must prove: • The nature of the defect amounting to a failure to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, • When the defect was first brought to the attention of the landlord (unless it was a defect that should have been obvious to a reasonable person during a routine inspection), • Whether the landlord failed to investigate and remedy any defect within a reasonable time in the circumstances.
The best evidence establishing a breach are photographs taken at the relevant time, on which the Tribunal can make an independent assessment ,14-day notices, texts, emails etc confirming when the issue was raised.
Section 46(1) of the Act states that the landlord shall provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. Analysis and decision
The onus of proving these claims rests with the tenant. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. In this case the tenant must establish more likely than not that the landlord has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act).
Apart from the two photographs showing the inside of the shed, no other photos have been provided.
The tenant has submitted a written statement outlining their claims.
When asked about the sufficiency of their evidence, the tenant explained that they thought they had been invited to mediation and did not expect an adversarial hearing and therefore did not bring evidence with them, nor provide it with their application. The notice of hearing sent to both parties explains clearly that this was a Tribunal hearing.
Since the maintenance issues have now been resolved, the question is whether any delay was unreasonable.
The tenant has not provided any written correspondence, such as notices or emails, to support their claims about when each issue was raised. In the absence of contemporaneous evidence, I prefer the landlord’s account as more reliable.
Regarding the water supply, I accept the landlord’s evidence that the issue was not raised as outstanding until the inspection on 31 October 2025. There is no correspondence supporting that the issue was raised after the plumbers’ initial visit in June 2025 or that the landlord had been advised of scalding. There is no evidence that the tenant gave the landlord the Council’s findings or suggestions. There is also no evidence provided to allow for an objective assessment of the issue.
The plumber visited on 13 November 2025, and the most important part of the work was completed about six weeks later, on 22 December 2025. Based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that there was an unreasonable delay.
Similarly, regarding the drainage and the storage shed, I am not satisfied that these issues were raised before the inspection on 31 October 2025. When raised the water supply was given priority. There is not enough evidence to make an objective assessment of either issue, I am not satisfied that the landlord’s response was unreasonable, including in relation to the shed.
Finally, regarding the security stays: under section 46 of the Act, the landlord is not necessarily required to install security stays on windows that do not already have them. The law requires the landlord to ensure the property is “reasonably secure,” but this does not mean they must add security stays in addition to the window latches that keep windows closed when not open. Whether the property is reasonably secure will involve an objective assessment. In this case the Tribunal is unable to conduct an objective assessment.
However, the landlord must maintain any security stays that were already present at the start of the tenancy. Although there is no photographic evidence of the security stays in the bedroom, the landlord appears to accept that they were damaged and that there was an unreasonable delay in repairing them. I am therefore satisfied that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations under section 45(1)(b).
Damages for loss of amenity can be awarded by the Tribunal when a tenant’s enjoyment or use of the property is reduced due to a breach.
In this case, I am not satisfied that the failure to maintain the security stays in the bedroom justifies a rent reduction. I also note that the landlord installed security stays on windows where they may not have been required. However, the delay in repairing the bedroom security stays was unreasonable. I accept that the tenant suffered a loss of amenity. Taking into account the duration of the issue, I award compensation of $150.00. Costs
Because Phil Evans has partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that their name or identifying particulars of that party not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Although the landlord has been substantially successful, they do not seek name suppression.
Section 95A (4) further provides the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, may order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
The tenant seeks name suppression. Although the tenant has not been substantially successful, the tenancy is ongoing, and I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant suppression of the address of the tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407430 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407430 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

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