What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5440567 about?

The tribunal order states: Streamline Investments Limited must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $3,572.38 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5440567?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Failure To Maintain: $4,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent: $1,915.14 awarded to landlord; Water Charges: $1,012.48 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5440567?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5440567?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13944435-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5440567 about?

The tribunal order states: Streamline Investments Limited must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $3,572.38 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5440567?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Failure To Maintain: $4,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent: $1,915.14 awarded to landlord; Water Charges: $1,012.48 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5440567?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5440567?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13944435-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

61 Elliot Street, Pahurehure, Papakura 2113 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5440567 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5440567 — net $3,572.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 3 March 2026	$1,915.14		Rent to 3 March 2026
Water charges	$1,012.48		Water charges
Failure to maintain		$4,500.00	Failure to maintain
Exemplary damages		$2,000.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$2,927.62	$6,500.00
Net award		$3,572.38
Bond		$1,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,572.38

All parties attended the hearing on 23 July 2026.

The tenant filed an application with the Tribunal on 16 February 2026. The landlord filed an application on 29 May 2026.

The tenancy commenced on 13 February 2010 and ended on 2 March 2026 (16 years later) pursuant to a 90-day notice of termination dated 2 December 2025. The initial weekly rent was $400.00 increasing to $630.00 and a bond of $1,200.00 was paid.

The property managers were not a party to the tenancy agreement and acted as the landlord’s agent. This order is made against the landlord company named in the tenancy agreement. There is no indication that Mr Jacobson contracted in his own personal capacity and the property managers acted as intermediaries only. Tenant’s Application

The tenant brought various claims: • The premises failed to meet the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). • The landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. • The kitchen extractor fan was broken for about 3 years and was finally installed on 13 December 2025 (there is an invoice dated 16 December 2025 for $1,150,00). • No bathroom fan was ever installed, causing mould and health problems since the start of the tenancy, especially during winter. • The property was not insulated. Only underfloor installation was completed. There was no insulation in the ceiling. There is an email from the tenant on 2 September 2016 confirming that insulation and a heat pump (with a heating capacity of 8.1kW) had been installed. • The shed in the garden was rotten and unsafe. • The deck had structural defects. As a result, the tenant fell on the deck and hurt his back. • The glass cooktop cracked in 2014, and the landlord did not replace it. The tenant purchased a replacement in 2017, but this cracked again in 2022 and was not replaced. • The oven was faulty, and the tenant had to install a new oven at his own cost. The tenant notified the landlord of a problem with the oven by text on 13 November 2018. • The tenant was without a dishwasher for several years and had to purchase a replacement at his own cost. • Smoke alarms were only installed after the property managers were appointed in January 2025. • The thermostat on the hot water cylinder became faulty and was notified to the landlord by email on 25 November 2023. Repairs were not arranged until February 2025. • The fan in the lounge became faulty, and the landlord did not repair it. The fan was essential because, due to the lack of ceiling insulation, the temperature in the house would rise above 30C in summer. • The curtains in the lounge were in extremely poor condition. The tenant asked if they could be replaced in an email dated 21 July 2021. • The roof contained gaps, allowing birds to nest and cause disturbance. • The garage door broke on 10 November 2025, and the property manager was notified on 11 November 2025. The tenant texted the landlord about the repair on 1 December 2025 and the following day, 2 December 2025, a retaliatory 90-day notice of termination was issued. The garage door was repaired on 19 December 2025. Property Inspections

The landlord did not conduct property inspections. When the property manager was appointed, the following inspections were performed: • A routine inspection on 11 February 2025. The report referred to rotten outdoor seating in the forecourt, multiple holes in the roof soffit, a rusted garden shed that needed to be removed, and a leaning boundary fence. The report stated that smoke alarms were installed but were not tested. The report commented that the garage door did not open and was held shut by “various mechanisms”. There was a crack in an element in the kitchen. The oven door was kept closed by a nail. The extractor fan had not been working for a couple of years. There was no extractor fan in the bathroom (the photographs do not show mould in the bathroom). The report said the heat pump had not been serviced and the curtains in the dining room were ripped. • A routine inspection on 30 June 2025. The report referred to an ongoing mould issue in the bathroom and bedroom ceiling. The photographs show visible mould in the bathroom. • A routine inspection on 22 August 2025. The report referred to blocked gutters affecting the garage. • A routine inspection on 15 October 2025. • A routine inspection on 16 January 2026. The report noted that the premises were not compliant with the HHS. A new extractor fan had been installed in the kitchen. Healthy Homes Reports

Two Healthy Homes compliance reports were obtained by the landlord from the same assessor: • The first report is dated 5 March 2025. The premises were found to be non-compliant with the ventilation standards in the kitchen and bathroom. The moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping standards were not met. The report said that it was not possible to install ceiling insulation as there was no access to the roof space and major building work would be required to gain access. The kitchen extraction system was not in good working order at the date of the assessment. There was no extraction system in the bathroom, although it was “deemed practical” to install one. “Multiple drainage system failures” were identified: the spouting on one side of the property and on the garage was blocked, as was the strip drain on the driveway. There were gaps in the lounge and bedroom windows due to warping. • The second report was dated 20 July 2026. There was no extraction system in the bathroom. The premises were found to be compliant except in relation to the ventilation standard in the bathroom. Correspondence

The landlord provided a bundle of emails with the tenant, covering the period from 2013 to 2025. The emails chiefly involve the landlord chasing for rent arrears.

It is striking that, despite the many requests for payment of rent, the tenant did not respond with concerns about the issues now raised in the application. The tenant said that he mainly notified the landlord of problems by telephone.

The landlord’s response to many of the tenant’s claims was that they were unaware of them. The landlord said there was frequent and ongoing communication with the tenant, and if the maintenance issues had been repeatedly raised, there would be emails and texts referring to them. Relevant Law

Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.

A landlord is not in breach of their maintenance obligation if they do not remedy a latent or hidden defect (Barfoot & Thompson v Casey (District Court Auckland, CIV 2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007)). This means that a landlord’s maintenance obligation is limited to observable or notified defects, and a tenant has an independent obligation to notify the landlord of damage or the need for repairs (section 45(1)(d)).

Landlords must investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention in a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Limited (District Court Wellington, CIV 2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010)).

The landlord must insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. From 1 July 2019, all residential premises had to be insulated to a minimum standard. There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.

All private rentals had to comply with the HHS by 1 July 2025.

The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.

The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.

For a termination notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove 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 (section 54). Analysis

It is concerning that the landlords did not perform routine inspections until a professional property manager was appointed. The landlord said they had a good relationship with the tenant, did not want to disturb him, and thought that he would notify them of any issues. The landlord submitted that there is no legal requirement to conduct regular property inspections.

The tenant did have an obligation to notify the landlord of any damage to the premises. The tenant says he did so, but it is remarkable that hardly any of the issues appear to have been followed up in writing, given the tenant says they remained outstanding for lengthy periods. Despite being taken to the Tribunal several times by the landlord for rent arrears (resulting in mediated orders) the tenant did not apply to the Tribunal to compel the landlord to comply with their obligations.

The effect of the tenant’s approach to raising problems is that it is difficult to reconstruct when some of the issues first became manifest or what the landlords knew. It must also be noted that the effect of the Limitation Act 2010 means that the Tribunal probably cannot look back further than 6 years from the end of the tenancy in any event.

I do not accept the explanation provided by the landlords for their failure to perform inspections. The landlords could not close their eyes to the obligation to maintain the premises and effectively delegate this to the tenant. The repair obligation required them to actively take reasonable steps to check that the premises were being maintained appropriately. The landlords said that they had not been informed of many of the issues now being raised by the tenant. As noted above, they have a point, but in my view residential landlords need to be proactive.

Further, the landlords said the property was regularly attended for repairs, maintenance and improvement works. The landlord submitted that these visits meant the condition of the property was regularly observed and any issues that came to their attention were addressed. That may be so, but some maintenance issues that would probably have been identified at formal inspections were not remedied. Healthy Homes Standards

What can be established is that the landlords knew from 11 February 2025 onwards that the premises were in poor condition. On that date the property manager reported that the property was “very tired” and required “a lot of maintenance”. The landlords were also informed that the premises were not healthy homes compliant.

The landlord and property manager explained at the hearing that the failure to comply with the HHS by 1 July 2025 was because of problems organising contractors and the tenant’s failure to permit access. I accept these were genuine issues. However, the landlord knew from February 2025 that the premises were non-compliant, and it follows that they had the best part of four months to do the necessary work. Moreover, the maintenance issues identified in February 2025 must have been there for some time. Even in July 2026, several months after the tenant had left, the premises were not fully compliant.

The landlords said they performed repairs to the plumbing, hot water cylinder, guttering and downpipes, taps and shower mixers, amongst other things. I acknowledge that the landlords did perform maintenance, and this is not a case where the landlord completely ignored their obligations. However, as discussed further below, I find (after making allowance for the fact that the house was built in the 1970’s) that the landlords failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable condition and failed to comply with the HHS. Deck

The landlords said that, apart from the tenant’s November 2018 text message (which said the deck needed urgent repairs) no structural issues with the deck were reported. The tenant says the condition of the deck resulted in his accident on 21 July 2014, as shown in the ACC materials provided. The accident caused a contusion of the coccyx and may have caused a fracture.

However, it is unclear on the evidence whether and how the deck had deteriorated or the contribution this made to the tenant’s accident. The tenant mentioned that he strengthened the deck himself. I am not satisfied that the landlords were notified of an ongoing or recurring problem which they failed to address. Bathroom Mould

The landlords said they did not receive any complaint that the bathroom suffered from mould or that the absence of an extractor fan was creating a health or habitability issue.

While the premises did not have to comply with the HHS until 1 July 2025, the landlord still had an obligation to provide and maintain a home free from dampness (see the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947). Because installing an extraction fan in the bathroom was going to be more complex due to the exposed ceiling beams, this was not proceeded with when first considered in 2016.

However, the healthy homes assessment reports do not say that it would have been impracticable. There is a quote dated 8 December 2016 for installation of an extractor fan for $470.11 plus GST and a quote dated 29 May 2025 for $880.00 plus GST. It would, I accept, have been difficult for the tenants to keep the bathroom free of mould without a fan and they were forced to keep cleaning the ceiling.

I find that the landlords were in breach of their obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair to prevent the recurrent growth of mould in the bathroom. Smoke Alarms and Insulation

I am not satisfied that the premises did not have the required smoke alarms or insulation. There is evidence in the inspection reports that there were smoke alarms present, and the landlords said they were installed prior to the tenancy.

There is no basis to conclude, contrary to the healthy homes assessment reports, that it was reasonably practicable to install ceiling insulation. Therefore, there was no failure to comply with the HHS. Appliances

The claims in respect of the oven, stove top and dishwasher are not established in my opinion. The cook top was replaced twice by the tenants, which might suggest a degree of unreasonable use. The landlord did send an electrician to repair an issue with the cooktop on 17 March 2021.

Further, as the landlord noted, the tenant took it upon himself to pay for replacements. There is an email from the tenant dated 21 July 2021, advising the landlord that he had purchased a second-hand oven and installed it. The landlord said they were unaware of any further problems after they sent a maintenance person, in response to the tenant’s text in November 2018, or after the tenant’s email of 21 July 2021.

The landlord said they had no record of any issues being raised concerning the dishwasher. They did not refuse to repair the appliance because they had no opportunity to do so. There is an email from the tenant dated 28 April 2025. The tenant states that he had tried to take care of small things himself and had not bothered the landlord for maintenance: “...you know that I installed the oven, dishwasher, cooking hob, and many other things, without ever asking for reimbursement.” Curtains

The landlord understood that the tenant was going to replace the curtains in the lounge. It appears that this was a further issue which, at the time, the tenant decided to deal with himself. Therefore, it is not clear that the landlords were notified of a problem which they failed to investigate. Thermostat and Lounge Ceiling Fan

The problem with the thermostat for the hot water was raised in writing. The landlords said this email was overlooked due to an administrative error and so they were unaware of the problem. The landlords said they would have fixed the issue if they had known about it.

It is surprising that there is nothing further in writing from the tenant about this issue, given his evidence that the problem caused the hot water system to make noise at night (so that the power had to be switched off) and increased the power bills from being on all the time.

The issue does not appear to be mentioned in the property manager’s inspection reports, although a hot water cylinder leak is noted. I find that this claim is not established.

The landlord said they had no record of the tenant notifying them of a problem with the lounge ceiling fan. Again, that is surprising given the tenant’s evidence that the premises were very hot in summer, but there seems to be nothing in writing. The landlords are not liable for a fault which they did not know about, and which was not observable. Garden Shed

The landlords said they made no commitment to remove the garden shed and have no record of any concerns being raised. I find, however, that the dilapidated condition of the shed was a reasonable health and safety concern for the tenant that would have been obvious at any inspection. Roof and Garage Door

There were obvious holes in the roof soffit evident from February 2025. I do not accept the landlord’s explanation that they were unaware of the issue and were not given the opportunity to address it. The issue was clearly flagged in the property manager’s reports.

The tenant notified the property manager that the garage door springs had broken on 11 November 2025. The property manager responded on 18 December 2025, noting that three contractors had assessed and quoted for repairs and the landlords had decided to arrange repairs themselves. The quotes confirm that the garage door was old and in poor condition.

On 1 December 2025 the tenant texted the landlord stating that the garage door was “quite dangerous to open and close”. Repairs were completed on 19 December 2025.

The first report prepared by the property manager on 11 February 2025 commented that the garage door did not open and was held shut by “various mechanisms”. The tenant said there were no garage door locks, so they had to use wooden and metal bars to secure the garage.

I consider it is likely that the tenant’s notification in November 2025 was merely the culmination of a lengthy period, extending back before the appointment of professional property managers, when the condition of the garage door was unsatisfactory. I find that the landlords were in breach of their maintenance obligation. Compensation

The Tribunal must do its best to assess reasonable compensation arising from a breach, even if there is an element of speculation (Phipps v Consolo (District Court Wellington, CIV-2009-085-232, 14 December 2009)). The assessment of compensation is a question of fact. The contractual measure of damages is to place the relevant party in the position they would have been in if the contract had been performed, so far as money can do so.

As discussed above, the landlord was in breach of their obligations in the following main respects: • The premises had an issue with moisture and mould in the bathroom which was not the tenant’s responsibility. • The rusting shed and rotting outdoor seating were a health hazard for the tenant and his family. • The drainage, roof soffits and garage door at the premises were not maintained in a reasonable state of repair. • The premises did not comply with the ventilation, moisture and ingress, and draught stopping standards on 1 July 2025 as required, and were still not fully compliant at the end of the tenancy.

The tenant had to cope with these issues for a lengthy period. The mould was said to exacerbate health issues, although no medical documents were provided.

Assessing the adverse impact of these failures by the landlord as best I can, I award compensation of $4,500.00. Exemplary Damages

The landlords submitted that there was never an intention for the premises not to comply with the HHS. However, for the reasons given below I have concluded that it would be just to award exemplary damages. After considering the factors in section 109(3) of the Act, I award exemplary damages of $2,000.00 for the period from the February 2025 inspection report (which clearly advised the landlords of the true condition of the premises) to the end of the tenancy.

Despite the advice they received, the landlords did not ensure compliance with the HHS by the legally mandated date. In my view, and when combined with the failure over many years to conduct inspections to establish whether maintenance work was required, this amounts to an intentional breach.

Whatever the landlords knew about the condition of the premises prior to the appointment of a property manager, from February 2025 onwards they knew that significant maintenance work was necessary and urgent.

In terms of compliance with the ventilation standard, it appears from the detailed written timeline that they first requested a quote from an electrician on 17 April 2025. Subsequently other quotes were obtained to reduce cost and there were then difficulties getting the contractors to complete the works. There may have been a contribution to the delay by the tenant due to religious festivals and children studying from home, although it is difficult to assess the impact this had. In any case, the responsibility for ensuring compliance rested with the landlords, and they failed to meet the legislated date for compliance, even if some delay was caused by third parties. It is just to recognise this with a moderate award of exemplary damages. Retaliatory Notice

The landlords said that the termination notice was given because they had decided to sell the property. They noted that the tenant was offered a tenancy of a property owned by their mother.

There is some evidence indicating that the landlords did genuinely want to sell the premises. For example, there was communication in May 2025 with their mortgage broker about selling the premises in the future. Notwithstanding the timing of the notice, just after the tenant had followed up about the garage door, it appears that this was a business decision by the landlords.

I am not satisfied that the termination notice was retaliatory. Landlord’s Application Rent and Water

The landlord claimed rent arrears in the sum of $1,915.14 to the end of the tenancy. Water charges of $1,012.48 were also claimed.

The landlord’s rent claim was contained in two ledgers – one showing the outstanding rent and payments of $100.00 as per a mediated order dated 9 June 2025, and the other showing the current rent. The mediated order states the arrears on 1 June 2025 as $2,998.00, and this can be cross-referenced to the outstanding rent ledger.

Water invoices have been provided in support of the claim for water, and a credit of $141.11 was applied for fixed charges paid by the tenant due to a change in invoicing by the water supplier.

The tenant has not identified any payments made which have not been included in the landlord’s ledgers. Filing Fee and Name Suppression

Both parties have had some success. They will bear their own costs.

The tenant sought suppression. However, the tenant was not “wholly or substantially” successful in the proceeding. I decline suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5440567 — net $3,572.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 3 March 2026	$1,915.14		Rent to 3 March 2026
Water charges	$1,012.48		Water charges
Failure to maintain		$4,500.00	Failure to maintain
Exemplary damages		$2,000.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$2,927.62	$6,500.00
Net award		$3,572.38
Bond		$1,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,572.38