What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5487551 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5487551?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5487551?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5487551?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13873215-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5487551 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5487551?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5487551?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5487551?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13873215-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

127 Clyde Road, Fendalton, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5487551 — Leaks

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today. Ms Lynch represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for work orders for the remediation/repainting of the conservatory and kitchen ceilings at the premises. Background
The tenancy started on 17 January 2026 and is a fixed term tenancy for one year.
During the tenancy, some maintenance and repairs were required. The issue for the tenant involves the painting of the ceilings in the conservatory and the kitchen following repair work. The conservatory ceiling had some rust that required remediation, and the kitchen ceiling had a section removed to repair a leak from the upstairs shower.
Both ceilings were painted after the repairs were completed. The tenant is dissatisfied with the standard of the paintwork. In the conservatory, the satin paint used provides specular reflection resulting in a hot spot or glare.
On the kitchen ceiling, the tenant states that there are visible linear markings that extend across the repainted surface. He attributes that to the incorrect roller technique and the application of a second coat of paint before the first had properly dried.
The tenant raised his concerns with the landlord, but the landlord considers that the work has been done to an acceptable standard and has declined to do anything further.
Ms Lynch attended the property with Mr Allan Harris a licenced building practitioner from Tradetech, the firm that did the painting. Mr Harris has provided a report which the landlord produced in evidence.
The tenant also served a 14-day breach notice on the landlord for a failure to maintain and repair. He now seeks a work order for the repainting of both ceilings.
Both parties have provided photographic evidence for the Tribunal to assess as well as emails relevant to the claim. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Has the landlord failed to maintain and repair the premises (the conservatory ceiling and the kitchen ceiling)? •Should the Tribunal make a work order? Law
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Discussion Has the landlord failed to maintain and repair the premises (the conservatory ceiling and the kitchen ceiling)?
The repairs to both ceilings were completed and there seems to be no issue with the repairs themselves. Rather, the dispute is about the quality of the paint finish, different for each ceiling.
Mr Major has opinions about the quality of the paintwork that was done and the suitability of the paint used (on the conservatory ceiling) and the technique used (on the kitchen ceiling).
Mr Major’s opinion, genuinely held, is not sufficient to determine the issue, however. Rather, as best it can, the Tribunal must objectively assess the photographic evidence both parties produced and weigh any specialist evidence directly relevant to the work that was done.
A landlord’s section 45 RTA responsibilities are not absolute; they are subject to the age and character of the premises. The tenant agreed that these are older premises.
The photos from the parties differ in some respects, but even taking that into account, the alleged painting deficiencies are minor and cosmetic in nature.
Mr Harris inspected the ceilings on 22 April 2026. His report, dated 11 June 2026, details the work done on both ceilings. He states that the condition of the ceilings in the tenant’s photos differs significantly from the condition of the ceilings he observed. He states that the touch-up repairs to the conservatory ceiling had been completed to an acceptable standard.
Addressing the kitchen ceiling, Mr Harris states: The ceiling itself is estimated to be in excess of 30 years old and has been repainted multiple times over its lifespan. As with any repair to an older ceiling, minor imperfections within the existing substrate and surrounding surfaces may remain visible under certain lighting conditions. These imperfections are characteristic of the age and condition of the ceiling rather than the repair work undertaken.... In our professional opinion, the works were completed to an appropriate standard consistent with the approved scope of work and the age and condition of the existing building elements.
I have assessed the evidence both parties produced. I cannot conclude that the landlord has failed to maintain and repair the premises (the two ceilings at issue). While there are some differences in the paint finishes, they are objectively minor and ones that would reasonably be expected when ceilings of this age, previously painted (in the case of the kitchen) and of the material used (in the conservatory) are repainted.
The landlord has not breached its section 45 RTA responsibilities.

Should the Tribunal make a work order?

It follows from my finding that the landlord has committed no breach of its statutory responsibilities that there is no basis on which the Tribunal should make a work order as sought by the tenant. Result
For the reasons given, I dismiss the application. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant sought name suppression. I make no name suppression order as the application is not successful, which is a condition for name suppression to be granted 1 .

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today. Ms Lynch represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for work orders for the remediation/repainting of the conservatory and kitchen ceilings at the premises. Background
The tenancy started on 17 January 2026 and is a fixed term tenancy for one year.
During the tenancy, some maintenance and repairs were required. The issue for the tenant involves the painting of the ceilings in the conservatory and the kitchen following repair work. The conservatory ceiling had some rust that required remediation, and the kitchen ceiling had a section removed to repair a leak from the upstairs shower.
Both ceilings were painted after the repairs were completed. The tenant is dissatisfied with the standard of the paintwork. In the conservatory, the satin paint used provides specular reflection resulting in a hot spot or glare.
On the kitchen ceiling, the tenant states that there are visible linear markings that extend across the repainted surface. He attributes that to the incorrect roller technique and the application of a second coat of paint before the first had properly dried.
The tenant raised his concerns with the landlord, but the landlord considers that the work has been done to an acceptable standard and has declined to do anything further.
Ms Lynch attended the property with Mr Allan Harris a licenced building practitioner from Tradetech, the firm that did the painting. Mr Harris has provided a report which the landlord produced in evidence.
The tenant also served a 14-day breach notice on the landlord for a failure to maintain and repair. He now seeks a work order for the repainting of both ceilings.
Both parties have provided photographic evidence for the Tribunal to assess as well as emails relevant to the claim. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Has the landlord failed to maintain and repair the premises (the conservatory ceiling and the kitchen ceiling)? •Should the Tribunal make a work order? Law
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Discussion Has the landlord failed to maintain and repair the premises (the conservatory ceiling and the kitchen ceiling)?
The repairs to both ceilings were completed and there seems to be no issue with the repairs themselves. Rather, the dispute is about the quality of the paint finish, different for each ceiling.
Mr Major has opinions about the quality of the paintwork that was done and the suitability of the paint used (on the conservatory ceiling) and the technique used (on the kitchen ceiling).
Mr Major’s opinion, genuinely held, is not sufficient to determine the issue, however. Rather, as best it can, the Tribunal must objectively assess the photographic evidence both parties produced and weigh any specialist evidence directly relevant to the work that was done.
A landlord’s section 45 RTA responsibilities are not absolute; they are subject to the age and character of the premises. The tenant agreed that these are older premises.
The photos from the parties differ in some respects, but even taking that into account, the alleged painting deficiencies are minor and cosmetic in nature.
Mr Harris inspected the ceilings on 22 April 2026. His report, dated 11 June 2026, details the work done on both ceilings. He states that the condition of the ceilings in the tenant’s photos differs significantly from the condition of the ceilings he observed. He states that the touch-up repairs to the conservatory ceiling had been completed to an acceptable standard.
Addressing the kitchen ceiling, Mr Harris states: The ceiling itself is estimated to be in excess of 30 years old and has been repainted multiple times over its lifespan. As with any repair to an older ceiling, minor imperfections within the existing substrate and surrounding surfaces may remain visible under certain lighting conditions. These imperfections are characteristic of the age and condition of the ceiling rather than the repair work undertaken.... In our professional opinion, the works were completed to an appropriate standard consistent with the approved scope of work and the age and condition of the existing building elements.
I have assessed the evidence both parties produced. I cannot conclude that the landlord has failed to maintain and repair the premises (the two ceilings at issue). While there are some differences in the paint finishes, they are objectively minor and ones that would reasonably be expected when ceilings of this age, previously painted (in the case of the kitchen) and of the material used (in the conservatory) are repainted.
The landlord has not breached its section 45 RTA responsibilities.

Should the Tribunal make a work order?

It follows from my finding that the landlord has committed no breach of its statutory responsibilities that there is no basis on which the Tribunal should make a work order as sought by the tenant. Result
For the reasons given, I dismiss the application. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant sought name suppression. I make no name suppression order as the application is not successful, which is a condition for name suppression to be granted 1 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5487551 — Leaks at 127 Clyde Road, Fendalton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5487551 — Leaks at 127 Clyde Road, Fendalton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal make a work order?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal make a work order?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions