What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421199 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 5421199?

Being: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421199?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421199?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13314587-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421199 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 5421199?

Being: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421199?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421199?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13314587-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

50 Maryhill Avenue, Hoon Hay, Christchurch 8025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421199 — Mould & damp

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421199. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
being	$500.00		being
compensation and	$28.00		compensation and

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The landlords Jonathon Samuel Boyce and Susan Boyce are added as respondents to the application.
The landlord must by 9 April 2026 complete work to the bathroom to prevent the possibility of water and moisture ingress between the flooring vinyl and the wall lining around the entire perimeter of the bathroom.
Jonathon Samuel Boyce, Susan Boyce and Kirkman Asset Management Limited must pay [The applicant/s] $528 being $500 compensation and $28 filing fee immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Kirkman represented the landlords.
The tenants’ application claims that the landlord has not satisfactorily remediated the bathroom to prevent water and moisture getting behind the upstand of the vinyl flooring. The tenants want the flooring replaced. They also seek compensation for the effect on them for the landlords’ breach of their maintenance obligations.
The application included a claim with respect to a fence at the rear of the premises, but that issue was resolved at mediation.
The tenancy agreement names “Kirkman” as agent for the named landlords. The landlords should therefore be named as respondents to the application and so I have added them. Law
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) requires landlords to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
Where the Tribunal finds that the landlord has failed to comply with this or other obligations under s45, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. Background
The landlords bought the premises in 2016, and it was their home until this tenancy began in December 2024.
It seems that the previous owners converted the bathroom to a wet room. There is no shower door or shower tray, and the shower area is flush with the floor. There is a shower curtain around the shower area.
The floor is covered with vinyl with an upstand going 15cm or so up the walls. The wall linings meet the top of the upstand.
One doesn’t have to be a builder to know that this construction is defective. The wall linings should overlap the upstand otherwise there is an obvious risk of water and moisture entering between the linings and the flooring and wetting the wall and floor substrates.
In October 2025, the tenants noticed that there appeared to be water doing just that and they reported it to the landlords.
In the months that followed the landlord arranged for several different contractors to attend the premises to inspect, advise and carry out work.
The work that has been completed to date consists of screwing part of the vinyl upstand to the wall and covering the lining of one wall and part of an adjacent wall with new lining that goes down almost to the floor overlapping the upstand.
The landlords have also repaired water damaged timber and flooring in the adjoining kitchen.
The tenants say that the work has not gone far enough. They have produced photographs showing the upstand where it has not been covered with new linings coming away from the wall exposing gaps where water and moisture can penetrate. Discussion and Findings
I find that the bathroom was not in a reasonable state of repair when the tenancy began. In a bathroom or other wet area, a reasonable state of repair requires adequate water proofing to ensure that water and moisture does not penetrate building elements where it can cause dampness and damage. Both are likely to have a deleterious effect on the tenants’ use and enjoyment of the premises.
Because the wall linings did not overlap the vinyl upstand the bathroom was not adequately waterproofed. There was an obvious risk of water penetrating between the upstand and the wall linings which is what has happened.
I find that the remedial work that the landlords have completed to date is adequate as far as if goes, but that it has not gone far enough. In my view the entire perimeter of the bathroom where the wall linings meet the upstand should be made waterproof to prevent problems arising in the future.
I acknowledge that the work to date has dealt with the area that is most at risk from water ingress. But the bathroom is, in effect, a wet room and therefore it should be entirely waterproof. This is more important in the tenants’ household where there are young children using the bathroom increasing the likelihood of water escaping the confines of the shower curtain.
I have not made the order that the tenants requested namely that the flooring be replaced. I am not satisfied on the evidence that is necessary. I have left it to the landlords to decide how to waterproof between the flooring and the linings. It does not necessarily require new linings to be installed throughout. There may be other methods of achieving a waterproof result.
I have given the landlords three weeks to complete the work. Compensation
Because I have found that the landlords have been in breach of their obligations, the tenants are entitled to some compensation for the inconvenience, upset and loss of amenity caused by the situation.
I have assessed compensation at $500. Filing Fee
The tenants are also entitled to the filing fee. Suppression
The tenants have succeeded and so I have granted them name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421199. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
being	$500.00		being
compensation and	$28.00		compensation and

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The landlords Jonathon Samuel Boyce and Susan Boyce are added as respondents to the application.
The landlord must by 9 April 2026 complete work to the bathroom to prevent the possibility of water and moisture ingress between the flooring vinyl and the wall lining around the entire perimeter of the bathroom.
Jonathon Samuel Boyce, Susan Boyce and Kirkman Asset Management Limited must pay [The applicant/s] $528 being $500 compensation and $28 filing fee immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Kirkman represented the landlords.
The tenants’ application claims that the landlord has not satisfactorily remediated the bathroom to prevent water and moisture getting behind the upstand of the vinyl flooring. The tenants want the flooring replaced. They also seek compensation for the effect on them for the landlords’ breach of their maintenance obligations.
The application included a claim with respect to a fence at the rear of the premises, but that issue was resolved at mediation.
The tenancy agreement names “Kirkman” as agent for the named landlords. The landlords should therefore be named as respondents to the application and so I have added them. Law
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) requires landlords to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
Where the Tribunal finds that the landlord has failed to comply with this or other obligations under s45, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. Background
The landlords bought the premises in 2016, and it was their home until this tenancy began in December 2024.
It seems that the previous owners converted the bathroom to a wet room. There is no shower door or shower tray, and the shower area is flush with the floor. There is a shower curtain around the shower area.
The floor is covered with vinyl with an upstand going 15cm or so up the walls. The wall linings meet the top of the upstand.
One doesn’t have to be a builder to know that this construction is defective. The wall linings should overlap the upstand otherwise there is an obvious risk of water and moisture entering between the linings and the flooring and wetting the wall and floor substrates.
In October 2025, the tenants noticed that there appeared to be water doing just that and they reported it to the landlords.
In the months that followed the landlord arranged for several different contractors to attend the premises to inspect, advise and carry out work.
The work that has been completed to date consists of screwing part of the vinyl upstand to the wall and covering the lining of one wall and part of an adjacent wall with new lining that goes down almost to the floor overlapping the upstand.
The landlords have also repaired water damaged timber and flooring in the adjoining kitchen.
The tenants say that the work has not gone far enough. They have produced photographs showing the upstand where it has not been covered with new linings coming away from the wall exposing gaps where water and moisture can penetrate. Discussion and Findings
I find that the bathroom was not in a reasonable state of repair when the tenancy began. In a bathroom or other wet area, a reasonable state of repair requires adequate water proofing to ensure that water and moisture does not penetrate building elements where it can cause dampness and damage. Both are likely to have a deleterious effect on the tenants’ use and enjoyment of the premises.
Because the wall linings did not overlap the vinyl upstand the bathroom was not adequately waterproofed. There was an obvious risk of water penetrating between the upstand and the wall linings which is what has happened.
I find that the remedial work that the landlords have completed to date is adequate as far as if goes, but that it has not gone far enough. In my view the entire perimeter of the bathroom where the wall linings meet the upstand should be made waterproof to prevent problems arising in the future.
I acknowledge that the work to date has dealt with the area that is most at risk from water ingress. But the bathroom is, in effect, a wet room and therefore it should be entirely waterproof. This is more important in the tenants’ household where there are young children using the bathroom increasing the likelihood of water escaping the confines of the shower curtain.
I have not made the order that the tenants requested namely that the flooring be replaced. I am not satisfied on the evidence that is necessary. I have left it to the landlords to decide how to waterproof between the flooring and the linings. It does not necessarily require new linings to be installed throughout. There may be other methods of achieving a waterproof result.
I have given the landlords three weeks to complete the work. Compensation
Because I have found that the landlords have been in breach of their obligations, the tenants are entitled to some compensation for the inconvenience, upset and loss of amenity caused by the situation.
I have assessed compensation at $500. Filing Fee
The tenants are also entitled to the filing fee. Suppression
The tenants have succeeded and so I have granted them name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421199 — Mould & damp at 50 Maryhill Avenue, Hoon Hay, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421199 — Mould & damp at 50 Maryhill Avenue, Hoon Hay, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

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