Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5408010 — State of repair
Decided 8 Jul 2026 · Published 8 Jul 2026 · Application 5408010
- State of repair
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant names and identifying details.
- The landlord party name is amended to Barfoot & Thompson Limited.
- Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As Agents For Si-Hun & Myung-In Rho must pay [The tenant/s] $3,318.69 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation – failure to maintain $6814.29 Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total award Minus compensation already paid by landlord $6,842.29 $3,523.60 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $3,318.69
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. [Tenant 1’s representative] appeared as representative for [Tenant 1] together with [Tenant 2]. They confirmed they had authority to speak for all tenants. Amar Durakovic and Eve Pallett of Barfoot & Thompson Limited appeared as agent for the landlord and confirmed they had authority to speak for the landlord.
- The landlord party name is amended from Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited to Barfoot & Thompson Limited as recorded on the tenancy agreement.
- The tenants rented a modern premises, and the property is shared by five tenants all on the tenancy agreement. The premises have one main bathroom and an ensuite in the master bedroom.
- The parties advised that the tenancy began in 2023 but there had been some variations in tenancy agreement and the current tenants have been in occupation since February 2024.
- The tenants seek compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of filing fee for breach of the landlord’s obligations.
Did the landlord breach their obligations?
- [The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 38 and 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The law
- Under section 45, a landlord has obligations including that they must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and comply with the healthy homes standards.
- 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.
- Under section 38 the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
- The tenant claimed landlord breached the above sections by failing to repair a leak at the premises in a timely manner. The evidence
- The parties’ evidence is summarised below. Both parties filed copies of emails, photographs, and the landlord provided a copy of the Healthy Homes Standards report.
- The Healthy Homes standards report dated July 2021 recorded that the premises were healthy homes compliant. The landlord reaffirmed this in the tenancy agreement.
- In February 2025 the tenant reported a leak at the premises from the main bathroom shower. The landlord arranged for this to be repaired.
- In October 2025 the premises were due to have an inspection, and the landlord provided the tenants with a form to complete prior to the inspection.
- The form asked if there were leaks at the premises and the tenant placed a question mark beside the questions “Are there any leaks from the shower – walls or floors?” and “Are there any leaks from the roof into the ceiling?” and added the comment “When plumber visited earlier, He advised he would get in touch with landlord/property manager regarding his findings in bathroom. He stated to [redacted] there may be a leak in the shower affecting ceiling below. Never heard a follow up and we are concerned.”
- The landlord conducted the property inspection on 8 October 2025 and noticed evidence of a possible leak.
- The property manager questioned why this was not raised earlier and in response the tenant stated that there was no evidence until they started to see mould on the kitchen ceiling which is below the bathroom and raised the concern in October 2025.
- The property manager contacted a plumber on 9 October 2025 who attended the premises on 17 October 2025 and cut a hole in the kitchen ceiling which exposed mould and evidence of a leak from above.
- The landlord emailed the tenant on 17 October 2025 stating “I spoke with the plumber both during and after his visit today. He confirmed that the waterproofing in the shower has failed, which has caused a minor leak that wasn’t immediately visible. He also confirmed that the shower and kitchen are safe to use, and there is no safety concern.” The email went on to say that the mould was caused by the moisture from the leak and lack of ventilation and that most of the mould was on the piece cut out which should not have been left in the kitchen and needed to be thrown out. The landlord advised that a builder would be attending to provide a quote.
- The tenant’s claim relates to the period from 17 October 2025 until the leak repair was completed in February 2026.
- The tenants advised that following 17 October 2025 they received no communication from the landlord. The premises were left with a hole in the kitchen ceiling which exposed mould, and the mouldy piece of the ceiling was left inside the house.
- On 29 October 2025 the tenant emailed the landlord to follow up and query when the plumber would return. The email stated, “the shower is continuing to leak through the hole in ceiling into the kitchen below”. The landlord replied a week later on 6 November 2025 advising that a builder was the next step.
- On 17 November the landlord emailed to arrange for a second builder to attend to quote.
- On 20 November after another follow up from the tenant the landlord advised “I am currently waiting for confirmation on the planned scope of works...the intention is for the work to begin as soon as possible”.
- On 7 December 2025 the tenants filed a claim in the Tribunal as they were frustrated at the delay.
- On 9 December 2025 the landlord emailed the tenant to advise that a quote had been approved and the work was scheduled to commence on 15 January 2026.
- The parties emailed back and forward as the tenant was unhappy with a further delay in repair and the ongoing issues with the shower leaking which impacted both the use of the bathroom and the use of the kitchen.
- On 10 December 2025 the landlord stated that a cleaner would be arranged to clean the mould but this was not arranged. The landlord stated this was because there was no reassurance the tenants would stop using the shower so the property manager saw no point in arranging the clean.
- The landlord offered some compensation and to arrange a portable shower, however, the tenants were unhappy with the level of compensation offered. They were also unhappy with the offer of a portable shower due to privacy issues with having to go outside to use the shower at night when the proposed placement of the shower was at the front of the premises near the road.
- The repair work ultimately commenced on 15 January 2026 with completion after two and a half weeks on 1 February 2026.
- After the filing of the proceedings the landlord has paid the tenant the following in compensation itemised as follows: $1000.00 – rent reduction for December $1000.00 – rent reduction for January $1200.00 – one week rent holiday $323.60 – the cost of hiring a portable shower which instead the tenants used to shower at a nearby gym.
- The tenants seek further compensation to reflect the delays from 17 October as follows: -50 percent rent reduction from 17 October to 14 January while living with an open kitchen ceiling, water damage, mould and limited access to shower. -100 percent rent reduction from 15 January to 1 February when there was major disruption to the premises due to work taking place -the tenants have calculated this total to be $10,543 and after deduction of the compensation already paid seek the balance of $7019.40. The Decision
- Having considered the evidence, I find the following:
- The tenants have failed to prove that the landlord has breached the healthy homes standards because a healthy homes standards report was provided and there is no evidence that the premises were not compliant at the beginning of this tenancy.
- The tenants have proved that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair for the following reasons: (a)The tenants notified the landlord of a possible water leak in the form dated 2 October 2025. (b)A plumber did not attend to investigate the issue until 17 October 2025. (c)The leak repair was not completed until more than three months later on 1 February 2026. (d)The result of this delay was that the tenant’s enjoyment of the premises was impacted and use of both the bathroom and the kitchen was affected as water leaked from the upstairs shower into the kitchen. The tenants were also impacted by mould in the ceiling which continued to grow and was not treated.
- I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
Should the landlord pay exemplary damages?
- 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.
- The property manager acknowledged that the communication could have been better but stated that she was working hard trying to coordinate the repairs and had difficulty due to the Christmas holiday period.
- The tenant pointed out that the pressure of the holidays was not there in October but came about because of the delays.
- As there is evidence that the property manager was attempting to address the issue from as early as 9 October 2025 I find that the unlawful act was not intentional and therefore no exemplary damages will be ordered.
Should the landlord pay compensation?
- The Tribunal can order a landlord to pay such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any provision of the Residential Tenancies Act (section 77(2)(n)).
- Rather than out of pocket expenses the Tenants’ claim for compensation is in the nature of general damages for the inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of their premises of living in a home where the use of the shower for most of the tenants and kitchen for all tenants was impacted by the ongoing leak and mould issues for over three months.
- The tenants stated that they had reduced use of the shower often having to use the bath or basin as an alternative and that if the shower was used water leaked into the kitchen which had to be cleaned up. They were concerned at the open kitchen ceiling and the exposure to mould issues. This was a direct result of the delays in repair.
- The Tribunal has jurisdiction to make an award pursuant to section 77(2)(n) of the Act: Eayrs v Hindmarsh, DC Wellington, TT223/93, 12 November 1993. I find that the delay in repairing the bathroom leak affected the tenant’s use of and enjoyment of the premises and as it affected two rooms at the premises order compensation of $300 per week being one quarter of the rent, for the 19- week delay from 17 October 2025 to the work starting on 15 January 2026. I order a full rent reduction for the period from 16 January 2026 to 1 February 2026 where there was significant disruption to the tenants due to contractors at the premises, in the sum of $2914.29. The total compensation ordered is $6814.29 less the amount of $3523.60 already paid which leaves a balance of compensation owed of $3291.29. Filing fee/ Suppression
- Because the applicant tenants have succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee and suppress their identifying details in the order as applied for. See sections 102(4) and 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.