What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426888 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5426888?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426888?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13788783-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426888 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5426888?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426888?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13788783-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5426888 — State of repair

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord / owner of the property appeared with their agent / property manager. The tenant appeared.
The tenancy commenced 23 February 2023 and ended 29 January 2025.
On 16 January 2026, the tenant filed a claim as follows: i. Failure to maintain the driveway, ii. Failure to maintain an adequate means for water storage, iii. Retaliatory notice.
The tenant is seeking compensation and exemplary damages. Driveway
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain the driveway. The tenant has provided photographs showing the gravel driveway leading to and directly in front of the house taken around April or May 2023 showing areas of surface flooding.
The tenant states that despite raising their concerns the matter was not resolved until November 2023. They claim that the delay was unreasonable.
The landlord acknowledged that the issue had been raised on 29 May 2023 together with some guttering issues. The landlord stated that the guttering issues were given priority.
They state that the driveway serves both the landlord’s property, some greenhouses nearby, and the tenants property.
The landlord acknowledged that the driveway needed to be addressed, although after investigating the matter, they did not consider it to be urgent, noting that it is not unusual for gravel driveways on rural properties to suffer wear and tear, resulting in occasional water pooling when it rains.
The landlord stated that some of the potholes were temporarily repaired.
The landlord accepted a quote to re-gravel the driveway and provided an invoice confirming that this had occurred on 8 September 2023.
The tenant accepted that some of the potholes had been temporarily repaired prior to the re graveling of the driveway but believed this had been insufficient. Water
The tenant stated that in February or March 2023, they ran out of water. They said that they advised the landlord, who attended the property soon after to investigate. The tenant states the landlord provided them with a temporary supply of water, but the issue was not addressed until mid-June 2023. The tenant claims that the delay was unreasonable.
The landlord states that the property has a water tank supplied by a Council trickle feed and a bore. They stated that the tank had also been connected to the guttering, but during their investigation, they discovered the previous tenant had disengaged the guttering, diverting the water, which then caused damage to the tank and pipes feeding water to the house.
The landlord denies that the matter was reported in February or March 2023, and states that they were first advised of the issue on 02 June 2023. They state that they arranged for a plumber to attend the next day. The plumber conducted immediate temporary repairs and restored limited water supply to the house, pending more significant works to restore full water supply on 15 June 2023. The landlord stated that the tenant was compensated with a two-week rent holiday.
The tenant accepted that they had received compensation but maintained they had raised the issue in February or March 2023, and that the delay was unreasonable. Law
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 ( Act), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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”.
Whether the landlord has failed to meet their obligations will require an objective assessment.
Under section 45(1) (ca) of the Act, if the property is not on a reticulated water supply (Council supplied mains water), the landlord must provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water. They are not obliged to provide the water itself. Analysis and decision
Regarding the driveway, I accept the landlord’s evidence. Based on the photographs provided by the tenant, while the driveway had deteriorated due to wear and tear, I am not satisfied that it was to such a degree as to require a more urgent response. The issue was raised on 29 May 2023, partially remedied, and then fully addressed on 08 September 2023. I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations.
The tenant is unable to provide any documentary evidence confirming that they raised an issue with the water supply in February or March 2023. On the evidence, I am satisfied that the matter was raised on 02 June 2023 and fully rectified by 15 June 2023. The landlord acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the tenant and compensated them accordingly. I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately or meet their obligations. Retaliatory notice
The tenant states that shortly after the driveway was repaired, they received a 63-day notice to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that a member of the owner’s family was going to reside at the property.
The notice was issued on 31 October 2024, terminating the tenancy on 24 January 2025.
The tenant stated that in June 2025, they discovered that the property had been offered for rent. They contacted the agent and arranged a viewing but could not attend. They state that no one got back to them to reschedule, which they believed was because the agent may have discovered that they were the previous tenant.
The tenant believes that the notice was retaliatory and issued by the landlord under false pretences.
The landlord states that a family member became mentally unwell while overseas and returned to the country, whereafter they were admitted to a mental health facility. The plan was that upon discharge from hospital, they would reside at the property, which is nearby to other family for support. The landlord stated that the family member had moved into the property but had become unwell again and was re-admitted to hospital. Upon discharge, they went to reside with other family, and the property was offered for rent again. The landlord has provided a statement from the family member and medical evidence confirming the family member’s illness.
The tenant stated that they had been told by a neighbour that the family member had not moved into the property. Law
Section 54 provides that a tenant may apply to the Tribunal for a declaration that a landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord.
In the case of Kerr v Woodman, DC Porirua MA 244/88, 3 November 1988, the Court held that a notice of termination given for genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory.
Under section 60AA, a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
In the case of Borlase v Davies, Nelson TT95/95, 27 July 1995, the Tribunal held that a landlord’s notice to terminate a periodic tenancy was not necessarily invalidated by a change of reason subsequent to the notice being given. Analysis and decision
I accept the landlord’s evidence. I am satisfied that the notice was issued for a genuine reason. Although the tenant states that the family member did not move into the property, the evidence is hearsay and there is no statement from the neighbour. I am not satisfied that the notice was retaliatory or issued under false pretences. The claim is dismissed. Name suppression
Both parties seek 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.
The landlord has been wholly successful defending the claims and is granted name suppression. The tenant has not been substantially successful, and no suppression orders are made.

Reasons

The landlord / owner of the property appeared with their agent / property manager. The tenant appeared.

The tenancy commenced 23 February 2023 and ended 29 January 2025.

On 16 January 2026, the tenant filed a claim as follows: i. Failure to maintain the driveway, ii. Failure to maintain an adequate means for water storage, iii. Retaliatory notice.

The tenant is seeking compensation and exemplary damages. Driveway

The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain the driveway. The tenant has provided photographs showing the gravel driveway leading to and directly in front of the house taken around April or May 2023 showing areas of surface flooding.

The tenant states that despite raising their concerns the matter was not resolved until November 2023. They claim that the delay was unreasonable.

The landlord acknowledged that the issue had been raised on 29 May 2023 together with some guttering issues. The landlord stated that the guttering issues were given priority.

They state that the driveway serves both the landlord’s property, some greenhouses nearby, and the tenants property.

The landlord acknowledged that the driveway needed to be addressed, although after investigating the matter, they did not consider it to be urgent, noting that it is not unusual for gravel driveways on rural properties to suffer wear and tear, resulting in occasional water pooling when it rains.

The landlord stated that some of the potholes were temporarily repaired.

The landlord accepted a quote to re-gravel the driveway and provided an invoice confirming that this had occurred on 8 September 2023.

The tenant accepted that some of the potholes had been temporarily repaired prior to the re graveling of the driveway but believed this had been insufficient. Water

The tenant stated that in February or March 2023, they ran out of water. They said that they advised the landlord, who attended the property soon after to investigate. The tenant states the landlord provided them with a temporary supply of water, but the issue was not addressed until mid-June 2023. The tenant claims that the delay was unreasonable.

The landlord states that the property has a water tank supplied by a Council trickle feed and a bore. They stated that the tank had also been connected to the guttering, but during their investigation, they discovered the previous tenant had disengaged the guttering, diverting the water, which then caused damage to the tank and pipes feeding water to the house.

The landlord denies that the matter was reported in February or March 2023, and states that they were first advised of the issue on 02 June 2023. They state that they arranged for a plumber to attend the next day. The plumber conducted immediate temporary repairs and restored limited water supply to the house, pending more significant works to restore full water supply on 15 June 2023. The landlord stated that the tenant was compensated with a two-week rent holiday.

The tenant accepted that they had received compensation but maintained they had raised the issue in February or March 2023, and that the delay was unreasonable. Law

Under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 ( Act), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

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”.

Whether the landlord has failed to meet their obligations will require an objective assessment.

Under section 45(1) (ca) of the Act, if the property is not on a reticulated water supply (Council supplied mains water), the landlord must provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water. They are not obliged to provide the water itself. Analysis and decision

Regarding the driveway, I accept the landlord’s evidence. Based on the photographs provided by the tenant, while the driveway had deteriorated due to wear and tear, I am not satisfied that it was to such a degree as to require a more urgent response. The issue was raised on 29 May 2023, partially remedied, and then fully addressed on 08 September 2023. I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations.

The tenant is unable to provide any documentary evidence confirming that they raised an issue with the water supply in February or March 2023. On the evidence, I am satisfied that the matter was raised on 02 June 2023 and fully rectified by 15 June 2023. The landlord acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the tenant and compensated them accordingly. I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately or meet their obligations. Retaliatory notice

The tenant states that shortly after the driveway was repaired, they received a 63-day notice to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that a member of the owner’s family was going to reside at the property.

The notice was issued on 31 October 2024, terminating the tenancy on 24 January 2025.

The tenant stated that in June 2025, they discovered that the property had been offered for rent. They contacted the agent and arranged a viewing but could not attend. They state that no one got back to them to reschedule, which they believed was because the agent may have discovered that they were the previous tenant.

The tenant believes that the notice was retaliatory and issued by the landlord under false pretences.

The landlord states that a family member became mentally unwell while overseas and returned to the country, whereafter they were admitted to a mental health facility. The plan was that upon discharge from hospital, they would reside at the property, which is nearby to other family for support. The landlord stated that the family member had moved into the property but had become unwell again and was re-admitted to hospital. Upon discharge, they went to reside with other family, and the property was offered for rent again. The landlord has provided a statement from the family member and medical evidence confirming the family member’s illness.

The tenant stated that they had been told by a neighbour that the family member had not moved into the property. Law

Section 54 provides that a tenant may apply to the Tribunal for a declaration that a landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy is retaliatory.

For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord.

In the case of Kerr v Woodman, DC Porirua MA 244/88, 3 November 1988, the Court held that a notice of termination given for genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory.

Under section 60AA, a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.

In the case of Borlase v Davies, Nelson TT95/95, 27 July 1995, the Tribunal held that a landlord’s notice to terminate a periodic tenancy was not necessarily invalidated by a change of reason subsequent to the notice being given. Analysis and decision

I accept the landlord’s evidence. I am satisfied that the notice was issued for a genuine reason. Although the tenant states that the family member did not move into the property, the evidence is hearsay and there is no statement from the neighbour. I am not satisfied that the notice was retaliatory or issued under false pretences. The claim is dismissed. Name suppression

Both parties seek 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.

The landlord has been wholly successful defending the claims and is granted name suppression. The tenant has not been substantially successful, and no suppression orders are made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426888 — State of repair

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426888 — State of repair

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions