What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5465210 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 5465210?

Property Damage: $345.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465210?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465210?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13723873-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5465210 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 5465210?

Property Damage: $345.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465210?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465210?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13723873-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5465210 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5465210 — net $373.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Reimbursement of shower repair costs	$345.00	Reimbursement of shower repair costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$373.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$373.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5465210 — net $373.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Reimbursement of shower repair costs	$345.00	Reimbursement of shower repair costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$373.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$373.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $373.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

On 10 March 2026 the tenant filed an application seeking refund of the bond, work order, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties attended the hearing.
At the hearing the Tribunal confirmed the tenant’s claims are as follows: a. Refund of $345.00 taken from the bond for the cost of repairs to the shower. b. Compensation for failing to maintain the shower leading to a loss of amenity. c. Breach of the Healthy Homes Standard for ventilation. d. Reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant withdrew their claims for a work order stating they vacated the property on 10 April 2026.
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to order the landlord to: a. Have all of their other rental properties investigated by professional trades; and b. To pay for professional trades to undertake the shower repairs. These claims were struck out.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The tenant seeks $345.00 compensation, money that she agreed to be deducted from the bond to reimburse the landlord for the cost of shower repairs. The tenant said the landlords told her she was liable for the repair costs after failing to report the leak. The tenant now disputes her liability.
The tenant said that she had been absent from the property for a period of about two months between December 2025 and January 2026 and provided a timeline of events that was not disputed by the landlord: a. Saturday 31 January 2026, tenant returned to the property and discovered a mushroom growing between the floor and skirting board next to the shower. b. Sunday 1 February 2026 at 9.59pm, the landlord was sent an email, with photographs, reporting the leak and the mushroom growth. c. Monday 2 February 2026 at 1:49pm, the landlord advised the tenant to remove the mushroom and breach the area and said they would attend the property to investigate. d. Tuesday 3 February 2026 at 9:34am, tenant emailed the landlord asking for the issue to be resolved promptly, querying if the property had contributed to her ill health , and advising she would be residing elsewhere until such time as the leak was repaired. e. Wednesday 4 February 2026, the parties attempted to negotiate a time for the landlord to attend the property to investigate the leak on 5 February 2026. f. Thursday 5 February 2026 at 11:20am, the tenant advised the landlord that as a time had not been agreed the landlord would need to attend the property “next week” to investigate the leak. At 12:20pm the landlord contacted the tenant asking what time she finished work and trying to arrange a time to inspect the leak. g. Sunday 8 February 2026, the tenant told the landlord that a mirror had fallen down and asked for it to be rehung. h. Monday 9 February 2026, the parties agreed to the landlord attending the property at 6:00pm on Tuesday 10 February 2026 to investigate the leak. i. Tuesday 10 February 2026, the landlord attends the property and discovered rot in the Seratone shower liner. j. Wednesday 11 February 2026, the shower is patch repaired - by glueing a board over the rot. Tenant advised the shower is watertight, a temporary fix is in place, and that the area under the shower will need to dry out for a “few weeks” before the shower liner can be replaced. k. Thursday 12 February 2026, the tenant emails the landlord to advise the shower is still leaking and express concerns about the rotten wood and mould under the shower tray. The tenant requests a qualified contractor attend the property to investigate the issue and effect repairs. l. Friday 13 February 2026, landlord responds by saying that this is a temporary fix and that they will be completing the repairs. m. Saturday 14 February 2026, tenant contacts landlord reiterating that the shower was not watertight, stating it is unsafe, and requesting a professional contractor investigate the leak and replace the shower. The landlords respond, reaffirming that they will replace the shower and asks to attend the property on 15 February 2026 to rehang the mirror and investigate the leak. n. Sunday 15 February 2026, the landlord attends the property and discovers the shower leak originated from the shower rose head. The tenant is advised the shower rose head has been temporarily fixed and not to move it until it can be properly mounted. The mirror was rehung. o. Wednesday 19 February 2026, the tenant attends the property and photographs the temporary timber framing in the in the shower. p. Wednesday 4 March 2026 tenant asks landlord when she can expect the shower to be replaced. Tenant notes she has not been living at the property and not using the shower so the wood should be dry. q. Saturday 7 March 2026, tenant returns to the property and observes the temporary timber framing has been removed from the shower. Landlord advises the shower is able to be used.
The tenant said that she is not responsible for the slow leak in the shower and never touched the shower rose.
The landlord said they believe the tenant is liable for the cost of repairs to the shower because: a. The tenant failed to report the leak; and b. Suggested the leak may have been present for three to four months, given the water staining on the wood. Analysis and decision
For compensation for damaged to be paid to a landlord the Tribunal needs to be satisfied that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
Section 40(1)(d) of the Act, provides that tenants have a duty to notify landlords of any damage to the property.
Section 11 of the Act provides that any agreement between a landlord and a tenant that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act is of no effect unless the inconsistency is expressly permitted by the Act or the Tribunal finds it should be permitted. Section 11 goes on to state that a landlord is able to voluntarily waive any or all rights they have, or to voluntarily incur more extensive obligations they have as a landlord under the Act 1 , but any purported waiver by a tenant of any right or power conferred by the tenants is of no effect 2 .
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant was responsible for damage to the shower liner or rose head causing the slow leak.
The Tribunal accepts the tenant’s evidence that she had been mostly absent from the property for a two-month period between December 2025 and January 2026. The Tribunal further accepts the tenants evidence that upon discovery of the mushroom and the shower leak she reported the issue to the landlord via email. The tenant’s evidence was persuasive, and the Tribunal accepts that there was no evidence of a leak prior to the discovery of the mushroom. There was no evidence provided to suggest the tenant was responsible for the damage to the 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 11(2). 2 Ibid at section 11(3). Serotone liner. The Tribunal finds that the damage to the liner was caused by fair wear and tear.
The Tribunal was not persuaded by the landlord’s evidence that the leak had been present for three to four months which the tenant failed to report. No corroborating evidence was provided to support these claims. The tenant has been predominantly absent for the property for a two-month period. The shower had not been regularly used. The leak was only observed under the shower tray after the skirting board was removed. I am satisfied the tenant discharged her obligations under section 40(1)(d).
While the tenant initially agreed to pay for the shower repairs, this agreement was inconsistent with the provisions of section 11 of the Act. This is because the landlord could not prove the tenant damaged the shower liner or rose head or delayed reporting the damage. The Tribunal finds the tenant is not responsible for damage to the shower and is therefore not liable for the repair costs. The amount of $345.00 is awarded.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the shower?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Act. Under section 45(1)(b), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant does not seek exemplary damages for the breach but invites the Tribunal to award compensation for loss of amenity, being a full refund of her rent from 31 January 2026 to 10 April 2026.
The tenant said the landlord failed to repair the shower within a reasonable timeframe after the leak was reported. The tenant said that her health deteriorated after moving into the property and believes this can be attributed to the shower leak, which caused dampness and mould in the property. The tenant said that once the leak was discovered she no longer felt comfortable living in the property and choose to live elsewhere while waiting for the shower to be replaced.
The landlord disputes there was an unreasonable delay in repairing the shower saying, before it could be replaced the timber framing needed to be exposed to give it time to dry out. The Tribunal heard the framing would take several weeks to dry while the shower replacement would take approximately three days.
The landlord acknowledged the shower was temporarily repaired, but said that was to ensure the tenant still had use of the facilities.
The landlord opposed any award for compensation for loss of amenity saying there was no need for the tenant to leave the property over this period. The landlord’s position was the slow leak did not cause a build-up of damp or mould in the property and no evidence was provided in support of this claim. Analysis and decision
For an award for compensation for breach of the landlord’s obligation under section 45 the tenant must prove the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant’s position is that the landlord failed to properly maintain the shower and that when the leak was discovered failed to complete the repairs promptly. As a result, the tenant said she felt unable to remain in living the property as she believed the damp mouldy shower negatively impacted her health.
The landlord’s position is that the property was not damp or mouldy and the temporary repairs were necessary to allow the timber framing to dry out before the shower was replaced. The landlord believes they undertook repairs in a timely manner.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant has proved on the balance of probabilities the landlord failed to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant discovered the issue on 31 January 2026 and reported it to the landlord on 1 February 2026. The landlord provided the tenant with advise on how to deal with the mushroom. The parties then negotiated a date and time for the landlord to visit the property to investigate the leak. There was some delay in the landlord access the property with the tenant being unwilling provide immediate access to the property in accordance with section 48(1)(a) of the Act and requiring the landlord to give 24 hours’ notice as per section 48(2)(d) of the Act.
The first temporary fix was completed 11 days after the shower leak was initially reported. The second temporary fix was completed three days after the tenant identified the first temporary fix had failed to remedy the issue. The Tribunal is not satisfied the landlord unnecessarily delayed completing the repairs. The Tribunal accepts the landlord’s evidence that a temporary fix was required to allow the timber framing to dry before the shower could be replaced.
The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence before it that the tenant needed to vacate the property while the repairs were undertaken. There was no medical evidence provided to support the tenants claims that the shower leak adversely accepted her health. The photographs provided by the tenant do not support her claim the bathroom was mouldy, the timber framing was mouldy or the property was damp. The tenant was able to use the shower while the temporary fix was in place. The claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standard for ventilation?

The tenant has claimed that the landlord has breached their obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provided for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Act requires compliance with the HHS. A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered as set out in Schedule 1A to the RTA, is $7,200.00.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenant claimed the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard. 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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant claims the extractor fan in the bathroom did not adequately ventilate the bathroom after a shower. The tenant believes that the lack of ventilation contributed to the rotten Serotone shower liner.
The landlord states the property is HHS compliant with appropriate mechanical ventilation being installed in the kitchen and bathroom three years ago, prior to the required compliance date. This work was undertaken along side a the installation of a heat pump. Analysis and decision
The Tribunal heard that it was the tenant’s opinion the mechanical ventilation in the bathroom did not comply with the HHS. The tenant failed to provide any evidence to corroborate her statement in the form of photographs, calculations or measurements of the bathroom extractor fan. Given the lack of corroborative evidence the claim is dismissed. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties seek name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Act provided that the Tribunal must, on application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, order that party’s name and 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.
Both parties have been substantially successful and are granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465210 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465210 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the shower?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standard for ventilation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the shower?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the Healthy Homes Standard for ventilation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions