What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5439483 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 5439483?

Compensation: Failure to maintain/lo…: $2,468.60 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5439483?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5439483?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13579181-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5439483 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 5439483?

Compensation: Failure to maintain/lo…: $2,468.60 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5439483?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5439483?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13579181-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5439483 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5439483 — net $4,496.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain/loss of amenity	$2,468.60	Failure to maintain/loss of amenity
Exemplary damages: failure to maintain	$2,000.00	failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,496.60
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,496.60

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5439483 — net $4,496.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain/loss of amenity	$2,468.60	Failure to maintain/loss of amenity
Exemplary damages: failure to maintain	$2,000.00	failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,496.60
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,496.60

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Kainga Ora- Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $4,496.60 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This order should be read in conjunction with the previous Tribunal order dated 1 April 2026 in which work orders by consent were made. Background
This is a periodic tenancy that started on 17 December 2020. The property is a two-storey house with the lounge, dining, kitchen and laundry on the ground floor. The first floor contains the bathroom and three bedrooms. One of the bedrooms has an external balcony which is above the lounge.
Prior to the tenancy starting, the property was extensively renovated. This included installing new piles and fixings to raise flooring under the lounge and dining room; replacement of the roof; and substantial bathroom works including replacement of wet wall linings. Claims
The tenant’s claims are: a. The landlord failed to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable condition in relation to the following and/or the items do not meet healthy homes standards: i. Leaks entered the ground floor lounge from the balcony above; ii. Leaks entered the entrance hallway from the upstairs bathroom; iii. The leaks caused extensive water damage and black mould, and temporary repairs carried out did not fix the leaks properly. b. The landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises with over 47 contractor visits to the property to try and fix the problems.
The tenant seeks the following remedies: a. Work orders to fix the leaks, remove all mould, repair damaged gib and remediate to a professional standard; b. Ensure the premises are compliant with healthy homes standards with the landlord to provide certificates for the work; c. Compensation for loss of amenity by giving a 50% rent rebate from 1 July 2021 to the date the repairs are completed; d. Exemplary damages for breaches of maintenance and healthy homes obligations.
Both parties provided extensive submissions and evidence including the landlord’s detailed Kotahi diary notes recording communications with the tenant, contractors, tenancy managers and detailing work orders. Copies of videos, telephone recordings, and emails were also provided in evidence. I confirm that I have reviewed all the material submitted before writing this decision. Has the landlord failed to comply with their maintenance and healthy homes obligations?
A landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. 1
Landlords are liable for defects they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire that knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 2 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage.... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: “....the obligation of the landlord under s45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is......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...” 3
Tenants have an obligation to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs. 4
Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation. 5 Notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair, or the need for repair is apparent from observation. 6
Landlords must also comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) 7 . Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For Kainga Ora housing tenancies, the compliance date was 1 July 2024.
The HHS standard for drainage and moisture ingress provides that the tenancy building must have a drainage system that efficiently drains storm water, surface water, and ground water to an appropriate outfall. The drainage system must include appropriate gutters, downpipes, and drains for the removal of water from the roof. 8
The HHS also requires landlords to ensure that all things installed or provided under HHS are maintained in good working order or, if they cannot be, they are replaced within a reasonable time. 9 1 Section 45(1)(b) Residential tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 Stewart Benson, Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18 3 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Limited DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 4 Section 40(1((d) RTA 5 See n2 above and Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as LJ Hooker [2015] TT 2845 at [9] and [11] 6 See n2 above and Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey, DC Auckland CIV 2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [47] 7 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA 8 Regulation 27 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) 9 Regulation 6 HHS
Breaching any of the above obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. 10 The leaks
There is no dispute that there have been two serious leaks at the premises affecting the lounge and hallway entrance. The tenant reported the leaks to the landlord when they occurred but complains that they were not fixed in a reasonable time. She claims that many of the repairs were merely “band aids” or temporary fixes which failed within weeks or months. The tenant says that the prolonged failures by the landlord to properly repair the leaks rendered significant parts of the premises to be damp and mouldy. Additionally, multiple visits by trades, which did not resolve the problems, have interfered with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.
The tenant acknowledged at the hearing that she prevented the landlord and their contractors from accessing the premises at times. She advised the landlord that works would have to wait because there were serious health issues affecting her whanau. Her daughter was diagnosed with serious health problems in January 2021 and passed in April 2021. In June 2022, her first grandchild was still-born. Towards the end of 2024, the tenant disclosed to the landlord that her son had been diagnosed with cancer. However, while she prevented access on multiple occasions, the tenant claims that the landlord still did not act to complete repairs in a reasonable time frame.
The landlord acknowledges the leaks and delays in completing repairs. However, the landlord argues that the delays, as well as the number of tradespeople requiring access, stemmed more from the tenant’s actions and circumstances than any lack of responsiveness on their part. They say that she significantly restricted access to the property by: a. Declining access due to family health issues and asking trades to contact her at a later date to arrange access; b. Declining access for extended periods, such as when away for holidays; c. Refusing to indicate future availability and advising that she would call trades when she was available; d. Refusing access when a family member working nightshift was sleeping; e. Cancelling or refusing access at scheduled appointment times; f. Limiting access to specific days, such as Fridays only, when trades needed access on consecutive days to finish the work.
The landlord says that they were mindful of the tenant and her family’s personal circumstances and tried to balance the urgency of the repairs with compassion 10 Section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA for her situation. To that end, they refrained from using the formal tools available to them to gain access to the premises for works (e.g. such as breach notices and/or an application to the Tribunal) as they did not want to make the situation more difficult for her. The external balcony/lounge leak
The lounge leak was reported by the tenant in or about July/August 2021. Water was entering the lounge ceiling from the butynol-covered exterior deck above. On 22 September 2021, the landlord’s contractors assessed that the balcony substrate required re-pitching to ensure water drained toward the front of the house rather than pooling at the rear toward the cladding and leaking under the apron flashing. Subsequently, the butynol decking was re-pitched and resealed with butynol by 6 March 2023.
The landlord’s file note on 11 May 2023 records that four attempts to contact the tenant to arrange the internal remediation works failed. Therefore, the remediation was put on hold.
The tenant claims that the leak persisted after this work was done but there is no evidence of her advising the landlord of further leaks into the lounge until 23 December 2024 when she telephoned the landlord’s call centre. She also mentioned the recurring lounge leak when telephoning the call centre on 7 March, 6 May, 19 May and 18 June 2025. The tenant served a 14-day notice on the landlord to remedy both leaks on 10 July 2025.
On 28 July 2025, the landlord’s file note records that a contractor attended the premises to complete a temporary repair as follows: “Resealed laps in butynol and sealed up holes in weatherboard-Returning Nov to complete repair.” An earlier note records that the butynol work on the balcony was still under warranty and that the contractor wanted to defer the work until November 2025 when the weather is dryer. A subsequent note says that the tenant asked for the work to be delayed. I find that this entry is incorrect. It is clear on the evidence that the contractor recommended the work be delayed, not the tenant.
The manufacturer’s instructions for applying butynol recommend that it is best applied in warmer months; that substrates must be dry; and plywood and timber substructure should have a maximum moisture content of 20%. The product should also not be used in temperatures below 6 degrees Celsius. Therefore, I accept that there was good reason to defer this work until November 2025.
The work to repair the deck and butynol covering was largely undertaken in February 2026 with remaining work to complete interior remediation to be done in accordance with the Tribunal’s previous order dated 1 April 2026.
Prior to completion of the work, I accept on the evidence presented by the tenant that she continued to experience leaks into the lounge captured in buckets and pots; there was further damage to the lounge ceiling. There is evidence that the tenant advised the landlord of continuing leaks in the lounge on 23 October and 2 December 2025. The bathroom/entrance hallway leak
This leak was reported by the tenant to the landlord’s call centre on 4 October 2024. Water was entering the downstairs hallway entry ceiling from the bathroom above. The landlord’s contractor attended and found a leak around the basin trap which they tightened to fix the issue.
On 25 October 2024, the tenant reported another leak in this area. A contractor attended and could not find any leak coming from plumbing pipework in the bathroom and the area was found to be dry. However, he advised the tenant to report immediately if it happened again. A file note on 29 October 2024 records that a decorator needs to plaster and paint gib patch and trims. It appears this work was completed on 4 November 2024.
The landlord’s submission that there was no leak, and the area was dry is at odds with the recorded hall ceiling damage requiring plastering and painting of the gib patch. It is probably more accurate to say that they could not find the source of the leak, but damage from a leak was evident.
On 23 December 2024, the tenant reported to the call centre persistent leaking in the hallway again. She advised that the patch applied was bubbling; black mould was present on the stairway wall; wallpaper was falling off the stairway wall from moisture; and there were cracks in the wall area. In this same call, the tenant advised that the lounge leak was also still a problem. The call centre file note says that the tenant “believes these patches can hold until the holiday close down is over.” However, I have listened to this recording and consider the note does not accurately record the tenant’s advice on this point. The recording is as follows: Operator: “ With the contractors I know they are only attending limited jobs this holiday—do you think that will be able to hold until after the holidays?” Tenant: “Oh that’s fine—I just need you to make a note because I’m not going to be held liable for it.”
On 31 January 2025, the landlord’s contractor assessed the property. A file note on 7 February 2025 records that the balcony is in average condition and does not appear to be the cause of the leak. It also records that a builder needs to assess and repair the rotting cladding and damaged ceilings. This entry seems to relate to the lounge leak.
On 21 February 2025, another contractor attended to assess the property. A file note on 21 February 2025 records: “Investigated plumbing around the bathroom area in the main entry hall opened up hitch....observed with bath running for any leaks, no leaks.”
A file note on 28 February 2025 records: “To get photos to justify the rot, trades would need to pull down the entire ceiling at the scope stage. Given that they were seeking approval to do this work, trades did not want to cause any damage that may have been declined. Trades have measured the likely extent of the damage and scoped accordingly.” Again, this seems to relate to the lounge leak.
As mentioned above, the tenant continued to report ongoing leaks in both the hallway and lounge, and mould on the stairwell wall with the call centre on 7 March, 6 May, 19 May and 18 June 2025. The tenant served a 14-day notice on the landlord to remedy both leaks on 10 July 2025.
While the landlord applied a temporary repair to the balcony/lounge on 28 July 2025, the landlord does not appear to have responded to the report about mould in the hallway.
The landlord says it received another report from the tenant on 21 August 2025 of leaking in the hallway, which they investigated. Again, their contractor could not find a leak and the matter was closed on 30 September 2025.
Finally, on 9 February 2026, the hallway leak was identified as a failure in the bathroom wet wall linings. Work to replace the wet wall linings was conducted in March 2026 with final interior remediation work to be completed in accordance with the Tribunal’s previous order dated 1 April 2026.
Prior to completion of the work, I accept on the evidence that the tenant continued to experience leaking in the hallway. However, there is no evidence to establish that the tenant advised the landlord of continuing leaks after 30 September 2025 and before February 2026. Nevertheless, I accept that she had to put up with the water damaged ceiling and black mould on the stairwell wall that she had reported to the landlord.
Based on the evidence, I accept that both leaks were latent defects not visible nor reasonably foreseeable by the landlord before they were first reported by the tenant. The time it took to identify the source of the bathroom/hallway leak escalated beyond the reasonable contemplation of the landlord and their contractors.

Did the landlord take reasonable steps to repair?

The issue to determine is whether the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and repair the leaks once they were reported and repair the resulting damage and/or whether the tenant is responsible for the delay.
I have carefully reviewed all the available evidence, with particular attention to the Kotahi diary notes (from the tenancy start date on 17 December 2020 to 5 August 2025) showing the timeline of events and communications between the landlord and the tenant and the landlord’s contractors.
I accept that there is evidence of the tenant preventing access by tradespeople to address the leaks on numerous occasions. There are several instances where appointments have been confirmed and the tenant has then either rescheduled or failed to allow access at the scheduled time. There are also instances of her failing to agree on a time; deferring the landlord’s requests and restricting the access to certain times and days all of which have caused substantial delays.
However, there are also periods during the tenancy where the delay has not been caused by the tenant. In some cases, the landlord was waiting for contractors to assess or provide quotes. There are also some other unexplained gaps. Findings
Between 23 September 2021—26 January 2022, no steps were taken by the landlord in relation to the lounge leak after the cause was diagnosed. There is no evidence of the tenant being contacted during this period for access or any explanation from the landlord for the delay. I consider that this is unreasonable and a breach of the landlord’s obligations under s45(1)(b) RTA. The tenant is entitled to compensation for that 17-week period;
Between 27 January 2022—24 March 2023, I consider the landlord took reasonable steps to repair the lounge leak and was largely hampered by the tenant failing to respond and provide reasonable access. I find that the landlord is not in breach of their obligations under s45(1)(b) RTA during this period;
I consider the landlord took reasonable steps to address the bathroom/hallway leak when it was first reported on 4 October 2024;
After reporting recurring leaks on 23 December 2024 –the landlord did not arrange an appointment to investigate until 15 January 2025. I consider they should have actioned this sooner and it is a breach of their obligations under s45(1)(b) RTA and the tenant is entitled to compensation for that 3-week period;
After 15 January 2025, the tenant prevented access by rescheduling/ refusing to agree a date for access until 21 February 2025. Subsequently the landlord tried to arrange access for trades to attend to work in the lounge. On 7 March 2025, the tenant advised that her son had cancer; was returning home in 2 weeks; and the mould and leaks needed to be repaired before he returned. However, the tenant would not agree to a time for the works and said that she would contact the trades. The landlord’s attempts to contact the tenant and arrange the work went unanswered. No further contact was made by the tenant until 6 May 2025. I find the delay between 16 January—6 May 2025 was caused by the tenant and there was no breach by the landlord for this period;
Between 7 May 2025—17 July 2025, there was little progress in addressing the leaks and mould, with the tenant following up on 19 May, 18 June and serving a 14-day notice on 10 July 2025. I consider this is a breach of the landlord’s obligations under s45(1)(b) RTA and the tenant is entitled to compensation for this 10-week period;
On 18 July 2025, the landlord’s contractor wanted to do a temporary fix for the lounge leak. The tenant deferred this to 28 July 2025. This delay was caused by the tenant and there was no breach by the landlord for this period;
From 29 July 2025 to 20 February 2026, the lounge leak work was outstanding. The landlord’s notes indicate that the work would be done in November because dry weather was required. However, it was not done until February 2026. It is not clear why the balcony work was further delayed from November 2025 to February 2026. In the meantime, the lounge ceiling continued to leak after the temporary repair on 28 July 2025 and the tenant reported these leaks to the landlord on 23 October and 2 December 2025. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord took reasonable steps to cover up the internal lounge ceiling or otherwise act to prevent leaking pending the permanent balcony work. In the circumstances, the failure to address the ongoing leaks is a breach of the landlord’s obligations under s45(1)(b) and, in any event, the tenant is entitled to some compensation for the loss of amenity over this 24-week period;
In relation to the bathroom/hallway leaks I accept that the landlord could not find the source of the leak until February 2026. However, the evidence is that the tenant nevertheless experienced and reported leaks in that area and that mould was present on the stairwell wall from 23 December 2024. I find that the landlord did not address the presence of mould until it finally identified the source of the leak (the wet wall linings in the bathroom) in February 2026 and carried out repairs in mid-March 2026. Where a property has an inherent problem or a leak causing mould, then the landlord will have responsibility to remedy the fault. As stated by the Tribunal in Hullia v Tran & Vu 11 the premises must be able to be used and lived in, in the normal way without excessive mould developing. If this cannot be done, then the problem of mould falls on the landlord to remedy under their obligations to maintain the property. Failure to address the mould issue by cleaning/removal/mould treatment to the extent possible is a breach of the landlord’s obligations. Specifically, the failure to take some steps regarding the mould between 29 July 2025—mid-March 2026 was a breach of the landlord’s obligations under s45(1)(b) RTA and the tenant is entitled to compensation for this 27-week period;
I accept on the evidence that the tenant restricted trades from entering the premises to complete remedial works on 27—30 March 2026. I make no awards of compensation after mid-March 2026, when the repairs were completed, and cosmetic remediation was required. 11 [2018] NZTT Manukau 4138867
Breaches of s45(1)(b) RTA relating to the leak into the lounge from the exterior balcony are likely also breaches of the HHS drainage and moisture ingress standard under s45(1)(bb) RTA.

How much compensation should be awarded?

Having found that the landlord either failed to repair issues in a reasonable timeframe and/or that the landlord is responsible for a loss of amenity suffered by the tenant, I turn to the issue of compensation. It is well accepted when awarding compensation that, so far as money can do it, the injured party should be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. Appellate courts have advised of the need to adopt a global approach when considering awards. The assessment of the proper amount of compensation is a question of fact in each case; it is not an exact science, and a commonsense approach is required. There are no general or absolute rules for calculating the amount, but the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.
I award as follows: a. 23 September 2021—26 January 2022 (lounge leak) 20% rent rebate calculated at $122/week of $414.80; b. 23 December 2024—15 January 2025 (both leaks) 30% rent rebate calculated at $159/week of $143.10; c. 7 May 2025—17 July 2025 (lounge leak and mould in hall) 30% rebate calculated at $159/week of $477; d. 29 July 2025—15 March 2026 (lounge leak and mould in hall) 30% rent rebate calculated at $159/week to 3/9/25 and at $177/week to 15/3/26 of $1.433.70; Total award:$2,468.60
The award reflects a global approach to compensation recognising that the extent of the loss of amenity was not a constant and differed depending on when various jobs were completed, the frequency and extent of the leaks; and overlapping issues at times. The compensation also reflects the inconvenience and overall impact on the tenant of the leaks. I note that while there was mould at the premises, the tenant did not provide specific medical evidence that it caused any respiratory or other mould related illnesses for her or her family living at the premises. I acknowledge the tenant’s advice that her adult son was immune-compromised due to his cancer diagnosis, and he stayed elsewhere for a period.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Failure by the landlord to comply with any obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with Healthy Homes standards is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to $7,200 may be awarded. 12
In this case the tenants proved breaches of s45(1)(b) and (bb) RTA which are unlawful acts.
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. 13
The District Court has said the requirement of intention is not about whether the party was aware they were breaching the Act. Rather, it is about whether they acted intentionally i.e. whether they intended to do whatever it was they did or did not do (Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00, DC Auckland,1/5/2001).
Intention is proved where the party turns their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately sets out to commit the act. It is unnecessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully, it is enough that they intended to commit the act which is in fact unlawful. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the obligation they have failed to perform, ignorance of the law is no defence. They are deemed to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional. Also, if the party is wilfully blind to the factual circumstances that give rise to an unlawful act, this may also be sufficient to prove they acted intentionally.
I consider that the failure to fix the leaks in a reasonable timeframe was not intentional. Overall, the landlord was responsive to the tenant’s reports; investigated the leaks and took steps to remedy the problems, albeit some delay occurred in obtaining quotes and contractor availability. The works were at times also significantly delayed through the tenant denying access. I accept that the lounge leak could not be permanently fixed until butynol could be applied in warmer weather. I also accept that the bathroom leak could not be diagnosed until February 2026.
However, of concern, is that there is evidence that mould was present at the premises, particularly on the entrance/stairwell wall. It is well documented in the Kotahi notes and the tenant also produced videos and photos of the mould. Also, leaks continued in the lounge after the temporary repair in July 2025, but the landlord did not take steps to stop the leaking pending the permanent 12 Section 45(1A) and schedule 1A RTA 13 Section 109(3) RTA balcony work. While the landlord was focussed on remedying the cause of the leaks, they did not address the interim mould damage and ongoing leaks. I find the failure to address these issues to the extent possible was intentional.
It is of significant interest to tenants and the public that landlords comply with their maintenance obligations. Dealing with leaks and mould is of the upmost importance given that it creates an unhealthy living environment and can cause serious health impacts. Considering all the relevant factors in s109 RTA, I award the tenant $2,000 exemplary damages for the failure to address mould at the premises. The award is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any previous breaches of this nature by the landlord. Has the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
A landlord must also not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 14 Contravening this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to $3,000 may be awarded. 15
The landlord’s right to carry out maintenance or renovations is inconsistent with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. It is a balancing act to determine the level of intrusion or nuisance that a tenant can reasonably expect to endure. The landlord is entitled to carry out maintenance, but those actions can quickly breach reasonable peace, comfort and privacy if they are not well managed. The landlord’s actions may breach the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises, particularly where the tenants have no prior knowledge of the work that is going to take place.
There is no dispute that multiple tradespeople attended the premises to investigate the issues and carry out repairs. The bathroom leaks were particularly unpredictable and difficult to diagnose. Tenants are expected to put up with a degree of noise and general nuisance when maintenance issues arise and require remedy by a landlord. In this case, I accept that the length and degree of the intrusion impaired the quality of the tenancy. However, this became largely drawn out by tenant’s actions in failing to allow access. Overall, I do not find that the landlord breached their obligations. Even if I am wrong I consider that the compensation awarded above is reasonable to cover the impact of the works and no further award is justified. Other remedies sought
The tenant requested that the landlord provide “completion certificates” for various works. However, I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord does 14 Section 38(2) RTA 15 Section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA not hold certificates for the works. The landlord advised the tenant by letter dated 22 October 2025 that these certificates do not exist. Completion certificates are only issued for construction sites to ensure compliance with building regulations and consents. However, a Healthy Homes Compliance statement dated 20 August 2025 has been provided which details how the premises complied with HHS. Suppression and filing fee
The tenant seeks suppression. The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 16
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. 17
While the tenant has not wholly or substantially succeeded with all her claims against the landlord, she has succeeded in part. The Tribunal has awarded the tenant less than the amounts she sought, mainly because the delays were caused by her preventing access to the premises at times. Having said that, I do not “blame” the tenant for this so much as I acknowledge the extremely challenging family circumstances that the tenant was navigating, and I empathise with her situation. It cannot have been easy to deal with the repair issues on top of family health issues. For those reasons, I consider that publication of the tenants identifying details is of no public interest and suppression orders are granted.
As the tenant has partially succeeded, I award reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5439483 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5439483 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord take reasonable steps to repair?

How much compensation should be awarded?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord take reasonable steps to repair?

How much compensation should be awarded?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions