What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5408568 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 5408568?

Been Paid During The Period 24 – 31…: $573.86 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5408568?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5408568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13649388-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5408568 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 5408568?

Been Paid During The Period 24 – 31…: $573.86 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5408568?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5408568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13649388-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5408568 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5408568 — net $601.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
been paid during the period 24 – 31 October 2025	$573.86	been paid during the period 24 – 31 October 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$601.86
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$601.86

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5408568 — net $601.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
been paid during the period 24 – 31 October 2025	$573.86	been paid during the period 24 – 31 October 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$601.86
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$601.86

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the Tenant and the Landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $669.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy began on 17 October 2025 and was for a fixed term until 17 April 2026. The tenancy property is a studio unit located in the bottom storey of a home that is also tenanted. The parties signed a tenancy agreement just over 10 days earlier on 9 October 2025. The tenant’s bond ($1,410) and first week of rent ($470) were paid directly to the landlord by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD).
The tenant moved in with her [grandchild aged under one] who was (and remains) in her care.
Issues arose when the property flooded only a few days later on 21 October 2025.
The tenant says that she was at the property during the day on 21 October 2025 when she noticed water seeping from the bathroom across the floor. She said that she contacted one of the landlords who said that he could not come immediately as he was at work. She said that she sent further messages explaining that the water was spreading across the floor and she would have to take her belongings out onto the covered deck to stop them from getting wet.
The tenant said that she understood that there had been a blocked drain on the property and that there had been a digger there the day before the leak occurred.
The tenant said that she stacked her belongings outside on the covered deck but couldn’t stay inside the property and so booked into a motel for the night. She explained that when she returned she asked the landlord how long it might take to fix and was told likely 2-3 months.
The tenant said that she was trying to organise a new place and thought she had secured a place on 22 October 2025 but that it fell through. She said she therefore unable to move immediately and so had to use the bond (which the landlord refunded on 22 October 2025) to pay for motels. However when she was at the property on 23 October 2025 trying to organise her belongings the landlord served her with a trespass notice. She explained that the police arrived but took no action as she was the lawful occupier and that she showed them a copy of the tenancy agreement to confirm the position.
The tenant says that the landlord: a. Did not lodge the bond b. Did not include a Healthy Homes Compliance Statement with the tenancy agreement c. Breached their maintenance and Healthy Homes obligations due to the flooding and an issue with the electricity d. Terminated the tenancy without cause.
The tenant seeks compensation of $5,000 made up as follows: a. The cost of alternative accommodation on 22 October 2025 ($250.00), and 24 – 31 October 2025 ($861.00) (total $1,111.00) b. Damaged belongings - $3,000 c. General damages for the landlord’s breaches (unspecified in the tenant’s application but clarified to be approximately $1,000 at the hearing)
The tenant also seeks exemplary damages for breaches which hare unlawful acts under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord says that the tenant was problematic, and that they had a complaint from the upstairs tenant almost as soon as she moved in. The landlord said that the leak was unexpected and that they could not find the cause. They said that tenant wanted to leave, that the tenancy ended by mutual agreement on 22 October 2025, they refunded the tenant’s bond the same day and gave her $250.00 so that she could pay for a moving truck to move her belongings and an additional $100.00 for the inconvenience.
The landlord said that the tenancy therefore ended on 22 October 2025 and that they were advised that if the tenant still remained in possession she was doing so as a squatter and that they should serve her with a trespass notice. The landlord said that when they went to the property the tenant has several family members there and they felt intimidated.
The landlord said that they have complied with their obligations. Onus and evidence
As with all claims that come before the Tribunal, the onus is on the party bringing the claim to prove their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).
For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence given at the hearing and all evidence filed, but the parties can be assured that I have considered all of the evidence carefully when preparing this decision.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond as required and has the bond been refunded?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said that they received the sum of $1,880 from the Ministry of Social Development, made up of $1,410 for the bond and $470 for the first week of rent.
The landlord produced a copy of the Tenancy Agreement setting out the amount of the bond and the first week of rent payable.
The landlord said that they had not yet lodged the bond as the tenancy had only just begun and ended well before 23 days had passed and the bond was refunded on 22 October 2026. The landlord produced a transaction receipt showing that the bond had been repaid on 22 October 2026.
I do not consider that there has been any breach by the landlord as although the bond was not lodged, the time frame for lodging the bond had not yet expired before the bond was refunded. I find that the entire bond has already been refunded.
For completeness I note that the entire bond (as listed on the tenancy agreement and as paid by MSD) was refunded.
This claim is not proven and is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to provide a Healthy Homes Statement?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 13 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to include a Healthy Homes Compliance Statement with the tenancy agreement.
The tenant produced a copy of the tenancy agreement (in the same standard form found on the Tenancy Services website) which had only the first two pages and did not include the Healthy Homes Statement which usually appears at the end of that form of agreement.
The landlord said that their version of the tenancy agreement has the Healthy Homes Statement. They produced a copy showing the Healthy Homes Compliance Statement. They said that it is possible that they sent the tenant a copy of the tenancy agreement with just the first two pages for the purposes of her sending to WINZ (as the tenant was seeking WINZ assistance) but Healthy Homes Compliance statement had been completed.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has proved that the landlord failed to provide a Healthy Homes Compliance statement. This claim is not proven and is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach their maintenance/Healthy Homes Standards obligations?

The tenant says that the landlord breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA because of flooding and a problem with the electricity.
Under section 45, a landlord must: (a) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; (b) comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (which set out various minimum standards for rental properties including drainage)
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. Flooding and drainage
The tenant said flooding was fairly substantial, seeping through the bathroom and across the floor and into the combined lounge/bedroom area. She was not sure of the cause but thought it could be related to the digger doing work outside the property the day before. The tenant said that she checked the door, the toilet and the hot water cylinder as possible sources of the flooding before calling the landlord.
The landlord said that the flooding was not significant and may have occurred if the tenant had accidentally left the front door open. They said no such flooding had occurred before, or since.
Having reviewed the photo and video evidence I consider that the flooding cannot possibly have occurred due to a door being left open. The tenant was home and was communicating with the landlord by text throughout the day as the flooding occurred. The photos show water spreading across the floor. The video produced in evidence shows a substantial amount of water inside.
There is no evidence before me that the property was not properly maintained at the outset. However maintenance issues do occur during tenancies, and when they do, there is an obligation on the landlord to see to repairs without a reasonable time frame.
As this tenancy ended shortly after, I am not in a position to make a finding about whether the landlord repaired the issue within a reasonable time frame, and so am unable to make any finding in regard to this claim. However I deal with the issues that arose surrounding the end of the tenancy below. Electricity
The tenant said that the fuse would trip regularly but provided no additional evidence.
The landlord accepted that the tenant told them that the fuse would trip but said that they thought the issue was likely to be the tenant’s fridge.
The only evidence produced regarding the safety of the electricity supply was an Electrical Certificate of Compliance and Electrical Safety Certificate dated 30 August 2025. This was the electrician produced by the electrician who installed the heat pump and a circuit breaker shortly before the tenancy began.
Although this certificate relates only to the heat pump installation I note that no issues are identified and the electrician
On the basis of the evidence produced I find this claim not proven. This claim is therefore dismissed.

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without cause?

The tenant explained that the tenancy was perfect for her and her grandchild and she wanted to stay, but the landlord told her that the flooding issue would take months to fix and said that it would be best if she left immediately. She said that she had nowhere to go, and had to use the refunded bond money to pay for a motel. She said that this put her under extreme stress as she was caring for a young baby. She said that people with her at the property are her family and were helping her to organise her things which were stacked on the deck until she could find a new tenancy.
The tenant says that the landlord has breached their obligations under under section 60AA RTA as by expecting her to leave instantly, and serving with her a trespass notice, they were effectively terminating the tenancy when they were not entitled to do so.
The landlord disputes the tenant’s version of events. They say that they agreed that the tenancy would end, and that as soon as the tenant’s bond was refunded the tenancy was at an end.
This was a fixed term tenancy for a period of six months. Neither party is able to give notice to end a fixed term tenancy except in exceptional circumstances 1 . The Tribunal may reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy in certain circumstances.
It is possible to end a fixed term tenancy if both parties agree. Usually that agreement would be carefully documented and would set out the reason that the tenancy was coming to an end, the last date of the tenancy and would cover any other matters including refund of the bond and any outstanding amounts payable.
In this case there was no written agreement documenting that the parties had agreed to end the fixed term. It is unsurprising that the police, having reviewed the only available documentation (the tenancy agreement), considered the tenant to be the lawful occupier.
At the hearing the parties gave very different versions about what had been agreed. The only written evidence available was: a. A large number of messages sent over Facebook Messenger on 22 October 2025 where: 1 See section 59 which sets out notice period where the property is rendered uninhabitable – where a landlord gives no notice under section 59 the notice period is 7 days i. the tenant expressed concern at the flooding, said that she would need to stay on a motel for the night and the landlord responded stating “as agreed yesterday please find another place and move out”; ii. The tenant responded to say that she was attending viewings but would need to move out her belongings and needed somewhere to stay while the flooding was still happening; iii. The landlord forwarded a room to rent advertisement from Facebook Marketplace, the tenant said that she would make enquiries, and the tenant later stating sent a message to the landlord stating that she had “been accepted but need the bond payment please”; and iv. The landlord sent confirmation of the bond payment. b. A video from the tenant inside the house taken on 22 October 2025 showing the landlord extent of the flooding in which she can be heard saying “Yes I do know about what we agreed with but the fact of the matter is you’ve got to accommodate me while I’m finding a place, I can’t be living here while it’s like this ...”
Having considered the evidence given by the parties at the hearing and the available documentary evidence, I am not satisfied that the parties agreed that the tenancy would end on 22 October 2025. I accept that the parties agreed that the tenancy would end, but my impression from the correspondence (and in my view the only logical interpretation of the parties’ discussions given the situation) is that the tenancy would end once the tenant had found a new tenancy and was able to move her belongings.
I accept that the landlord paid the bond to the tenant on 22 October 2025 but this does not necessarily mean that the tenancy has ended. Bonds can be refunded during tenancies and in this case it appears that the landlord released the bond to assist the tenant to secure a new tenancy.
I therefore find that the tenancy ended when the tenant moved into a new tenancy, which on the evidence before me appears to be 1 November 2025.
I am satisfied that the tenant could not stay in the tenancy property due to the initial flooding and ongoing dampness. It does not appear that any steps were taken by the landlord to install dryers or dehumidifiers or otherwise make the property safely inhabitable (even if that were possible given the small size of the space).
It was foreseeable that the tenant would require alternate accommodation given the circumstances. I consider that the accommodation costs are reasonable due to the urgency of the situation.
I therefore order that the landlord pay the cost of the tenant’s accommodation (for which receipts were produced) less the amount of rent that the tenant would have otherwise paid to the landlord in rent during this period. The total amount payable is $573.86.
I note that the landlord has already paid $250.00 for the tenant’s moving costs and additional $100.00 for the inconvenience, which I consider appropriate in the circumstances.

Is the tenant entitled to compensation for damage to her belongings?

The tenant claims the sum of $3,000 in compensation for damaged belongings.
The tenant produced photos of belongings stacked on the covered deck but there were no photos showing wet or damaged items and it was not clear how the sum of $3,000 had been calculated.
The landlord said that the deck is completely covered and fairly water-tight and that they were was no evidence of the tenant’s belongings getting wet due to the flooding, which only came part way into the bedroom/lounge.
Having considered the evidence I am not satisfied that the tenant has proved damage to her belongings.
This claim is not proven and is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
As the tenant has had some success in her claim, having been awarded some additional compensation, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal may suppress the names of the substantially successful party (see section 95A RTA). The tenant brought a number of different claims before the Tribunal. She has had some success but the landlord has also succeed in defending some of her claims.
In the circumstances I consider that it is appropriate to suppress both parties’ names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5408568 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5408568 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond as required and has the bond been refunded?

Did the landlord fail to provide a Healthy Homes Statement?

Did the landlord breach their maintenance/Healthy Homes Standards obligations?

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without cause?

Is the tenant entitled to compensation for damage to her belongings?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond as required and has the bond been refunded?

Did the landlord fail to provide a Healthy Homes Statement?

Did the landlord breach their maintenance/Healthy Homes Standards obligations?

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without cause?

Is the tenant entitled to compensation for damage to her belongings?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions