What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5419762 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 5419762?

Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5419762?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5419762?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13640536-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5419762 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 5419762?

Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5419762?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5419762?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13640536-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5419762 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5419762 — net $778.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain	$750.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	99. [The tenant/s] was substantially successful in the proceedings and I will award her the filing fee of $28.00.
Net award	$778.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$778.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5419762 — net $778.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain	$750.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	99. [The tenant/s] was substantially successful in the proceedings and I will award her the filing fee of $28.00.
Net award	$778.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$778.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 4 May 2024.
The tenant’s application raises issues relating to compliance with the healthy homes standards, maintenance, and breach of quiet enjoyment.
The hearing took place in [event location suppressed] on 8 May 2026. Both parties participated in the hearing. Ms Baker represented the landlord. Healthy homes standards
Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards. 1
The healthy homes compliance date for this tenancy was 1 September 2024.
[The tenant/s] raised the following issues under this heading: a. No guttering around the roof of the enclosed patio. b. Missing section in bathroom ceiling. c. Heating. Guttering
The moisture ingress and drainage standard states that rental properties must have efficient drainage for the removal of storm water, surface water, and ground water.
The property has an enclosed outdoor patio area. The roof is corrugated acrylic or polycarbonate sheet.
There is guttering around the house itself, but not around the roof of the patio area.
[The tenant/s] did not describe any issues with water pooling as a consequence of this lack of guttering. There are other issues with this patio roof, as discussed in more detail below.
I accept that the lack of guttering on this roof creates the potential for a problem with storm water pooling when it runs off the roof in heavy rain. However, [The tenant/s] has lived there for two years and over that period [City] has had enough high rainfall events to test the property’s drainage systems. There is no evidence of any pooling.
The healthy homes standard for drainage does not mandate guttering on all roof areas. The requirement is only that the drainage system, considered as a whole, is effective at dealing with storm water drainage. There is no evidence to show that the premises fail to meet that standard. Bathroom ceiling
There was a hole / cut out section in the bathroom ceiling from early in the tenancy. This is an area where the landlord removed a heat lamp, intending to replace it with a new one. There was some dispute about whether this hole was 1 Section 45(1)(bb) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) present on the first day of [The tenant/s]’s tenancy, but [The tenant/s] had evidence that it was present on 6 May 2024, which is two days after the start of the tenancy.
The new heat lamp was fitted some time in November 2024 (the exact date is unclear from the evidence provided to me).
Ms Baker said that the delay was caused by the owner purchasing a replacement heat lamp that unfortunately did not fit in the gap.
The healthy homes standard for draught stopping states that rental properties cannot have unreasonable gaps or holes in walls, ceilings, windows, skylights, floors or doors which cause noticeable draughts.
In this instance the hole did not allow draughts to come in from outside, but I accept [The tenant/s]’s comment that the hole (and the absence of a heat lamp) made the bathroom cold until the replacement was completed in November.
This is not an instance of a landlord intentionally ignoring the healthy homes standards. There are no grounds for an award of exemplary damages.
In my view the issue is properly addressed as a failure to maintain. [The tenant/s] should not have had to put up with a sizeable hole in the bathroom ceiling for 6 months. It is appropriate to make an award of compensation for the inconvenience that this caused. Heating
There is a heat pump in the lounge.
[The tenant/s] said that because there is no door from the lounge to the hallway, it is difficult to keep the lounge warm in winter.
I accept Ms Baker’s evidence that the heat pump meets the healthy homes standard in terms of the type of heater and capacity.
The issue is more practical than legal. It seems sensible to have a door between the lounge and hallway to keep the warmth in. At the hearing Ms Baker said that she would follow up on this. Maintenance
Landlords have a duty to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 2 2 Section 45(1)(b) RTA
This obligation is not a warranty that the property will be free from defects. It is an obligation on the landlord to respond promptly and appropriately to maintenance issues that are brought to their attention.
[The tenant/s] raised six issues under this heading: patio roof, patio door, bathroom floor, curtains, guttering, and removal of a cubby house. Patio roof
As noted above, the property has an enclosed patio area that has a roof comprised of corrugated plastic sheets.
[The tenant/s] said that: a. The sheets were in poor condition from the start of the tenancy. They were cracked and some of the sheets had large pieces missing. b. She was told several times that the landlord would sort out the roof, but nothing happened. c. She raised the issue in her 14-day breach notices on 10 September 2024 and 4 November 2025. d. Some repair work was carried out on or around 20 November 2025. e. The repair work has improved the roof, but there are still cracked sheets that allow leaks. f. Complete repair requires that all of the old sheets be replaced.
[The tenant/s]’s photographs show the poor condition of this roof, and the fact that it was in poor condition from the start of the tenancy.
This outdoor area is part of the premises that the landlord is obliged to keep in a “reasonable” state of repair. Obviously a tenant’s “reasonable” expectations of watertightness are different in this part of the property than in an indoor space such as a bedroom or lounge. The landlord cannot be expected to ensure that the roof is completely leak free.
However, it is an area that is intended as a habitable space, to be used and enjoyed by the tenant. There were sizable holes in the roof from the start of the tenancy. The repair is not complex or difficult. There is no obvious reason why it took 18 months for the repairs.
My finding is that the landlord failed to meet their maintenance obligation in respect of this issue.
Compensation for this and other proven breaches is discussed below. Patio door
This is a passage door to enter the enclosed patio area from outside.
[The tenant/s] said that: a. Early in the tenancy, the owner removed the lock from this door, promising to return with a new lock. He did return, but the new lock did not work, so the door remained without a lock. b. Because of this the door could not be secured. This was a security issue in terms of items that she kept in this area, but it also meant that the door would slam in the wind. In one instance the door was badly damaged. c. The lock was reinstated in May 2025, but the door itself has continued to deteriorate.
My finding is that the patio door lock was not repaired / replaced within a reasonable period of time. Although the repair was not urgent, the job was not difficult or costly, and the timeframe of one year is excessive and unreasonable.
This is a proven breach of the landlord’s duty to maintain the premises.
The question of compensation for the proven breaches is addressed below. Bathroom floor
Soon after the start of the tenancy [The tenant/s] let Ms Baker know that the floor in the bathroom appeared to be ‘bubbling’.
Ms Baker had the problem investigated, and it was discovered that there was a water leak underneath the bathroom floor that had caused damage to the sub- floor.
The leak was repaired.
The bathroom repair was carried out over the period 30 October to 12 November. It was a substantial job. For three days over that period, [The tenant/s] did not have access to the shower.
The landlord gave [The tenant/s] a rent waiver for 5 days.
[The tenant/s] argued that a. The timeframe from notification to repair (May to November) was excessive and unreasonable. b. The amount of compensation that she received from the landlord was insufficient.
My finding is that: a. Ms Baker acted promptly in response to [The tenant/s]’s message in May. b. The process of investigation, identifying the extent of the damage, obtaining quotes, and booking in tradespeople for a large job is time consuming and the overall time from notification to completion was not excessive or unreasonable in this instance. I also note that after the leak was repaired the floor did not deteriorate (apart from discolouring) and there is no evidence to suggest that the floor was unsafe. c. Landlords are obliged to carry out repairs, and this necessarily means an interference with the peace, comfort, and privacy of the tenant. Tenants are not entitled to compensation or exemplary damages for this – it is a reasonable, not an unreasonable, interference with the tenant’s peace and privacy. The Tribunal may award compensation on a “loss of amenity” basis if a particular repair involves a substantial loss of use of part of the property, or prolonged presence of builders / tradespeople. In my view, the amount of compensation given by the landlord to the tenant in this instance was reasonable and appropriate, and there is no basis for an award of further compensation by the Tribunal. Curtains
[The tenant/s] said that the curtains were in poor condition from the start of the tenancy. The nets were at the end of their life span and the curtains were stained and mouldy.
She raised this issue from the beginning of the tenancy. Ms Baker said that she would sort out the curtains, but this did not get done.
Ms Baker acknowledged that the nets need to be replaced. She said that the curtains have some historic stains / discolouration on the back, but she has never seen mould on them.
The photographs provided to me do not show mould, but do show some stains.
At the hearing Ms Baker said that she would replace the nets and have the curtains in the bedroom and lounge cleaned.
I acknowledge that this issue was frustrating for [The tenant/].
In my view the appropriate remedy is that the landlord gets on with replacing the nets and cleaning the curtains. I do not think that the issue is significant enough to warrant an award of compensation. Guttering
[The tenant/s] said that the guttering outside of her bedroom window overflows in heavy rain.
[The tenant/s] told the owner about this issue when he was on site on 17 November 2025. He told [The tenant/s] that he would clear the gutters and that it was a quick and easy job. [The tenant/s] sent an email to Ms Baker the same day confirming this.
The work did not get done.
[The tenant/s] followed up several times, including on 27 March 2026.
On 10 April 2026, [The tenant/s] sent Ms Baker an email stating that she had arranged for a contractor to do the work that day, and that she intended to pass on the invoice to the landlord.
Ms Baker replied that the owner would do the work and that if [The tenant/s] went ahead with the contractor then she would have to bear the cost.
The owner came to the property later that morning. [The tenant/s] refused the owner access on the grounds that she was not given sufficient notice of that intended entry.
The owner returned at a later date and cleared the gutters.
[The tenant/s] said that the overflowing gutter had improved since that work, but it still overflows in heavy rain.
[The tenant/s] flagged the issue in November 2025. No action was taken until [The tenant/s] effectively forced the landlord’s hand in April 2026. The logical first step in remedying the issue – clearing the gutters and seeing if that improves matters – is a quick and simple job. There is no good reason why the landlord did not action this sooner.
This is not just a minor or aesthetic issue like the stains on the curtains. An overflowing gutter can lead to other problems like pooling stormwater and moisture ingress into the house.
My finding is that the landlord failed to meet their maintenance obligation in respect of this issue. Removal of cubby house
The previous tenant left a child’s playhouse on the section.
[The tenant/s] said that she has been asking the landlord to remove it since early in the tenancy. Her first formal / written request came in November 2025.
The landlord required [The tenant/s] to repair a window in the playhouse that was broken (I understand) by [The tenant/s]’s lawnmower.
The playhouse is not a chattel that is part of the tenanted premises. It is essentially rubbish that was abandoned by the previous tenant.
[The tenant/s] is entitled to require the landlord to remove the playhouse, and she has no duty of care – to the landlord or to anyone else – in respect of it.
At the hearing Ms Baker undertook to remove the playhouse by Friday 22 May 2026.
As with the curtains issue discussed above, I agree that [The tenant/s] is entitled to what she is seeking and it is unfortunate that it was not done, despite many requests from [The tenant/s] and the passage of a considerable amount of time. The issue does not warrant an award of compensation, but the landlord needs to address it promptly. Compensation – failure to maintain
[The tenant/s] has proven that the landlord failed to meet their obligation to maintain in respect of the bathroom ceiling, the patio roof, patio lock, and overflowing gutter.
It is not appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages in this instance. The landlord did not wilfully ignore their obligation to maintain the premises. Rather, it seems that some issues were forgotten.
It is appropriate to make an award of compensation in respect of the problems that took too long to be remedied. The problems did not cause a significant loss of amenity for the tenant, but cumulatively they were frustrating and should not have been necessary for [The tenant/s] to have to follow up repeatedly.
Balancing these considerations, my finding is that an award of $750.00 is appropriate compensation. Breach of quiet enjoyment
Landlords must not cause of permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of the tenant. 3
A breach of this duty, in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is an unlawful act. 4 Exemplary damages of up to $3000 can apply.
The owners live close to the tenanted premises.
[The tenant/s] raised the following issues / concerns under this heading: a. The owner Mr Raynes came to the property frequently and unnecessarily. b. There was an excessive amount of inspections and cancelled inspections. Attendances by the owner 3 Section 39(2) RTA 4 Section 39(3) RTA
[The tenant/s] kept a record of the occasions that Mr Raynes came to the property, and she provided a copy to the Tribunal. The record shows frequent visits around September – November 2024, reducing in frequency in 2025, and only one visit so far in 2026.
[The tenant/s] said that the owner frequently accompanied Ms Baker when she came to the property for an inspection.
Ms Baker said that the owner came to the property to meet with tradespeople and discuss repairs. She said that the owner never carried out an inspection with her, but sometimes (as a matter of convenience) he met up with tradespeople on the same day that she was there for an inspection. Ms Baker said that this owner is more “hands on” than others in terms of his involvement with repairs, but she is encouraging him to be less involved and he has not been at the property at the last two inspections.
[The tenant/s] said that it was unnecessary for Mr Raynes to be at the premises to meet with tradespeople, given that Ms Baker is managing the tenancy and the tradespeople are presumably competent to do the job that they are instructed to do.
[The tenant/s] highlighted one incident, on 30 October 2025, where her security camera captured Mr Raynes inside the house.
It is not disputed that [The tenant/s] was given notice that Mr Raynes would be at the property that day to grant access to the builder who was coming to do work on the bathroom floor.
I was provided with a copy of the video recording. The recording shows Mr Raynes walking around the lounge, then going through the sliding door to the patio area. He looks around there, then returns to the lounge and looks out the window, presumably waiting for the builder to arrive. When the builder arrives, he exits the lounge.
[The tenant/s] argued that it was not necessary for Mr Raynes to go inside the house and go into the lounge and patio. He could have simply waited outside and let the builder in when they arrived.
I agree that it is appropriate for Mr Raynes to be cautious and to always have in mind the tenant’s right to peace and privacy. Where the owner has appointed an agent, it is unreasonable to expect the tenant to have to deal with both the owner and the agent. The situation is even more difficult here because the owners live nearby, increasing [The tenant/s]’s feeling that she ‘could not get away’ from the owner.
Clearly Mr Raynes had no intention to harass [The tenant/s], and it is not unlawful for an owner to be more ‘hands on’ than others – that is a matter of personal style.
The frequency of Mr Raynes’ visits to the property seems a lot, but I could not make a positive finding that the visits were excessive without understanding the reason for each visit. It could be that each visit was necessary and appropriate.
For that reason I will not make an award of compensation or exemplary damages under this heading, but I will indicate to the owner that it is appropriate to limit his personal visits to the property only to occasions where it is absolutely necessary and appropriate for him to visit, and to allow his property manager to manage repairs and maintenance as must as possible.
In terms of the 30 October incident, I accept [The tenant/s]’s argument that a landlord cannot convert a right to enter for the purpose of carrying out maintenance into an unofficial inspection.
However, every incident must be treated on its facts. Landlords who enter the premises lawfully for maintenance are not required to ‘blinker’ themselves. They are entitled to observe what is reasonably observable. There is a grey area where that reasonable observation shades into a pseudo-inspection.
This incident is within that grey area, but on balance my finding is that it did not amount to an unreasonable interference with [The tenant/s]’s privacy, or an unlawful entry. Mr Raynes walked through the lounge and looked at the outside area, which he had a legitimate reason to do given the condition of the patio roof. He waited in the lounge but did not inspect the lounge or any other part of the house. Inspections
[The tenant/s] provided a record of the routine inspections and cancelled inspections.
Landlords are entitled to carry out routine inspections but cannot do a routine inspection more frequently than once every four weeks. 5 A common industry standard is an inspection every three months, as this is a requirement of most landlord insurance policies.
The landlord did not breach the legal requirement of no more than one routine inspection every four weeks.
The cancelled inspections were an inconvenience for [The tenant/s], but I accept that this was not an intentional action by Ms Baker. This is in the category of issues worth discussing with the property manager, but not the basis of a claim for compensation or exemplary damages. Filing fee, name suppression 5 Section 48(2)(b) RTA
[The tenant/s] was substantially successful in the proceedings and I will award her the filing fee of $28.00. 6 Name suppression is granted. 7

Tenancy Tribunal case 5419762 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5419762 — 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