Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5477429 — Tenancy dispute at Room Suite 5D, 192 Willis Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011,
Decided 18 May 2026 · Published 18 May 2026 · Application 5477429
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
- Unit Titles
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
- Nest Property Management As Agent For Lachlan Mckenzie must pay [The tenant/s] $1,260.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
- The application to end the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.
- The landlord must replace the carpet and underlay in the second bedroom and properly treat the floor and any other areas deemed necessary by the installers to remove the smell and this must be completed by Friday 12 June 2026.
- The rent is reduced at the rate of $100 a week until the carpet installation is completed.
- The landlord must continue to investigate and repair the rattling in the ceiling space.
- The landlord must stop the whistle in the joinery and this must be done by Friday 29 May 2026.
- All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The tenants have applied for an order reducing their fixed term tenancy and for compensation because of issues with smell, noise and draughts since they moved in. The questions I have to decide include: • Should I reduce the fixed term tenancy? • Should the tenants get compensation? • Should I allow suppression?
Should I reduce the fixed term tenancy?
- The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
- This is the tenants’ claim to prove. The tenants said the unforeseen change in their circumstances is that they have been unable to use the second bedroom since they moved in. They said there is a terrible smell which prevents anyone from using the room for anything more than 20 minutes. They have paid for a report from an independent cleaning company which states the smell is of animal urine and the remedy is for the carpet and underlay in that room to be replaced, and the room treated for the smell. The tenants said this was an unexpected development and it has caused concern because they intended to use that room as a home office. Instead, the tenants are having to use part of the living room for work, which affects their use of the living room as well. The tenants are also concerned about a rattle in the ceiling space above them which rattles in the wind. There is also a whistle from one of the windows.
- The landlord said they have tried many times to address the smell and they now believe the room is usable. However, they are now prepared to replace the carpet given the results of the latest report. The landlord said the Body Corporate is working with the owner and the tenants to try and identify and fix the rattle. At the hearing the landlord said the whistle would be fixed. The landlord submitted these issues are things that can be repaired and are not serious enough to justify an early end to the fixed term tenancy.
- I am more persuaded by the landlord’s submission. I do not find the need to replace carpet, or investigate and repair the rattle, qualify as an unforeseen change in circumstances. I note the RTA does not require that landlords provide tenancy premises which are free from maintenance and it is common for the new tenants to notice repairs which the outgoing tenants, for what ever reason, have not reported. The claims relating to the early end of the fixed term tenancy are dismissed.
Should the tenants get compensation?
- The tenants have applied for compensation because of the number of repairs that have been carried out since they moved in, and because they cannot use the second bedroom and living room as they anticipated. As well as the smell and the rattle, the tenants reported draughty and broken windows after they moved in. They have accommodated 18 separate visits from tradespeople.
- The landlord has spent over $1,600 to replace hinges, catches, and restrictor stays on the apartment windows. The landlord provided me with supporting documents to show the work that had been carried out. The remaining whistle will be fixed. I note the landlord’s agreement to replace the carpet and treat the second bedroom to remove any source of the smell. It seems most likely to me the landlord has acted reasonably.
- Even so, there has been a loss of amenity for the tenants. This is because they have not been able to use apartment as expected, and they have had to accommodate an unusual amount of maintenance and repair since they moved in. I find $100 a week is reasonable compensation and allow it from start of the tenancy.
- I have made a work order for the carpet replacement and the whistle. The compensation should continue until the second bedroom can be used. See section 78(1)(e) RTA.
- Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Should I allow suppression?
- The tenants have made an application for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
- The tenants are allowed suppression because they are the most successful party. There is public interest in the landlord’s name because of the order to pay compensation.