What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5502036 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Waikato Real Estate Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5502036?

Cleaning: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $165.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Flea Treatment: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $152.38 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5502036?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5502036?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13889440-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5502036 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Waikato Real Estate Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5502036?

Cleaning: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $165.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Flea Treatment: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $152.38 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5502036?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5502036?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13889440-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10A Park Terrace, Hamilton Central, Hamilton 3204 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5502036 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

10A Park Terrace, Hamilton Central, Hamilton 3204 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5502036 — Cleanliness | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5502036 — net $1,565.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$165.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$920.00	Carpet Cleaning
Flea treatment	$300.00	Flea treatment
Replacement light bulbs	$152.38	Replacement light bulbs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,565.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,565.38

Claims and awards for application 5502036 — net $1,565.38 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $165.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $920.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Flea treatment

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Flea treatment

Replacement light bulbs

Amount: $152.38
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replacement light bulbs

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Waikato Real Estate Limited As Agent For Morrison Family Trust Kate Discombe $1,565.38 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,565.38 () to Waikato Real Estate Limited As Agent For Morrison Family Trust Kate Discombe immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,114.62 () to [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

On 1 May 2026 the landlord filed an application seeking compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
On 6 May 2026 the tenants filed a cross application seeking refund of the bond and compensation for breach of the landlord’s obligations to maintain the property.
The hearing proceeded in person. Ms Kate Discomb, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. Ms [The tenant/s] tenant/s] appeared for both tenants. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 6 July 2024 with the fixed term ending on 5 July 2025, there after the tenancy became periodic.
The tenancy ended on 7 April 2026.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) of the Act. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord seeks compensation for: a. Cleaning - $165.00 b. Carpet cleaning and stain removal - $920.00 c. Flea treatment - $300 d. Replacement of missing light bulbs - $152.38.
The tenants took no issue with the amount claimed for missing light bulbs and asked for the amount claimed to be taken from the bond. The amount claimed is ordered.

What was the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy?

The Tribunal was provided with a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs. This report shows the property was provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The report and photographs documented some minor wear and tear including: a. Scuff marks on the wall in the kitchen. b. Two stains on the lounge carpet – one dark and one brown. c. Discrete damage to the paint work on a wall in bedroom two d. A mark on the carpet in bedroom three; and e. One light not working in bedroom three.

What was the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy?

The end of tenancy photographs show: a. The carpets in the lounge, dinging room and stairs were stained and marked. b. The carpet had not been vacuumed and there was visible pet hair. c. The kitchen needed additional cleaning as there was visible marks on the handles and cupboards. d. The oven, hob and rangehood needed additional cleaning as there was visible grease staining and marks. e. Some of the window frames, windows and skirting boards needed cleaning as there were pet marks, dust, and cobwebs visible. f. The showers in both bathrooms needed additional cleaning as there was an obvious build-up of soap scum and grime and hair had been left in the drains. Claim 1 – cleaning costs
The landlord claims the tenants failed to return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and seeks compensation of $165.00 after paying a contractor to complete the work.
The tenant disputes the amounts claimed saying they were happy to return to the property to undertake additional cleaning but had been prevented from doing so by the landlord. Analysis and decisions
The Act does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. What is requires is that the premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings, are cleaned and all person items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, skirting, ceilings, lightshades or behind or underneath appliances. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this extra level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available – particularly photographs presented, and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The tenancy ended on 7 April 2026. The tenant was required to return the property in a clean and tidy condition at that time. There is no obligation on the landlord to allow the tenant to return to the property to carry out additional cleaning.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant failed to return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. The amount claimed is reasonable for the work completed and that is what is ordered. Claim 2 – Carpet cleaning costs
The landlord seeks carpet cleaning costs totalling $920.00 after paying a contractor to clean and stain treat the carpets following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord said clause 50 of the tenancy agreement required the tenants to return the carpets professionally cleaned and flea treated at the end of the tenancy. This condition of the contract was agreed between the parties, as the tenants had been allowed to keep pets.
The tenants dispute the amount claimed. The tenants said they overlooked the requirement to have the carpets professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy. When they were reminded of their obligations the landlord would not let them return to the property to complete the work. Analysis and decision
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the carpets at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Based on the available evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the carpets were not returned in a clean condition. The contractor’s invoice records the contactor commercially cleaned the carpets throughout the property before individually treating 46 coffee stains.
Tribunal is also satisfied the tenant failed to discharge their obligations under clause 50 of the tenancy agreement. As the Tribunal said at paragraphs [15] of this order, the tenants were required to return the property in a clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. There is no statutory obligation requiring landlords let tenants return to a property to carry out additional cleaning and/or repairs once a tenancy has ended.
The amount claimed for carpet cleaning costs is proportionate to the work that was needed. The claim is ordered in full. Claim 3 - Flea treatment
The landlord said that at the end of the tenancy the carpets had a flea infestation and seeks compensation of $300.00 after paying a contractor to complete a flea treatment. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided written evidence to say that after attending the property on 8 April 2026 they were left with flea bite marks to the ankles and lower legs. The Property Manager also gave evidence of being bitten by fleas during the end of tenancy inspection.
A letter from Pest Attack Pest Control was produced by the landlord. The letter stated that when they completed the flea treatment at the property (following professional carpet cleaning) no flea activity was observed. The letter explained how the lack of flea activity could be attributed to professional carpet cleaning. They said this process helps reduce the number of fleas and their eggs in the carpet, but cannot completely eliminate a flea infestation.
The tenants dispute the amount claimed. They say they regularly treated their pets for fleas and produced evidence of their usual flea treatment and while living in the property. They said that they never experienced flea bites while living in the property and challenged the landlord’s evidence noting they also kept pets. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the landlord’s claim for flea treatment proved for the following reasons.
Clause 50 of the tenancy agreement required the tenants to flea treat the property at the end of the tenancy. The tenants failed to provide evidence to prove they had discharged their obligation under the contract.
The Tribunal was persuaded by the evidence of both the landlord and their property manager that they had received flea bites while in attendance at the property following the end of the tenancy. The fact that the pest control contractor did not notice an active infestation can be explained by the fact the property was professionally carpet cleaned prior to the flea treatment being applied. It is likely without the flea treatment the infestation would again become obvious.
The amount claimed is ordered. Tenant’s claims
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Act which requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of 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 of the Act. The tenants do not seek exemplary damages. The ask the Tribunal to consider making an order for compensation totalling $5,000.00.
The tenants claimed there was a leak in the master bedroom originating from the doors that lead to the balcony. The tenants raised this issue with the landlord via the maintenance reporting system on 17 July 2025. The tenant said that as a result of the leak the carpet became wet, and produced photographs of the carpet and of historical damage to the paint on the skirting boards.
The tenants said that despite the leak being ongoing the landlord failed to complete appropriate repairs and, as a result, they felt the landlord was “gaslighting” them about the issue.
The landlord refutes the allegation they failed to maintain the property or take reasonable steps to effect repairs. The landlord produced maintenance logs for the property. These logs showed when maintenance issues were reported by the tenants and the actions the landlord took to resolve the issue.
With regards to the leak in the master bedroom the landlord said they first received a complaint about it on 17 July 2025. The records show a contractor attended that same day. The contractor could not find any obvious signs of a leak and gutters were cleared.
On 2 September 2026 the landlord contacted the tenant to find out if the leak had returned. The tenants replied on 3 September 2025 saying the leak had not returned.
On 20 November 2025 the tenants reported the water leak in the master bedroom had returned following a period of heavy rain. The landlord’s records record they immediately arranged for a contractor to attend. The contractor used a moisture meter to check the walls and could not find evidence of a leak or defects with the property. The tenants were advised and the job was closed.
The landlord said that this was the last complaint they received from the tenants about a leak in the master bedroom until after the tenancy ended. Had they received a further complaint they would have investigated and undertaken repairs. Analysis and decision
A landlord’s general maintenance obligations are to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and to comply with any statutory or regulatory obligations that relate to the premises. 1
Because landlords do not occupy the premises, they are not liable for want of repair unless they are aware of the problem. That knowledge can come directly from their knowledge of the premises or, more commonly, from the tenant informing them of the problem.
Tenant’s have an obligation under section 40(1)(d) to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, or any damage to the premises, or of any need for any repairs.
On the evidence before me I have not reason not to accept the landlord’s claim they took all reasonable steps to resolve the leak in the master bedroom when it was reported to them. The landlord’s maintenance reports prove this.
The tenant’s claimed the leak was ongoing; this had not been borne out by their evidence. The tenants reported the issue on two occasions. On both occasions contractors attended and investigated. The gutters were cleared on the first occasion. No explanation for the leak could be identified on the second occasion. As the landlord was unaware of any leak in the property after 20 November 2025 they were unable to take additional steps to remedy the problem.
The tenants claimed their failure to report the leak as an ongoing issue was because they felt “gas lite” by the landlord. I am not persuaded by this argument. On the evidence before me I am satisfied that: a. The landlord acted promptly to arrange for independent external contractors to investigate and effect repairs when they were reported. b. The landlord communicated clearly with the tenants throughout the repairs/maintenance process. The actions of the landlord show they were trying to resolve the leak and were not trying to deceive or manipulate the tenant.
For these reasons, the tenants claim must fail and is dismissed. 1 Section 45(1) of the Act. Other matters
Because Waikato Real Estate Limited As Agent For Morrison Family Trust Kate Discombe has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The parties did not seek name suppression.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5502036 — net $1,565.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$165.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$920.00	Carpet Cleaning
Flea treatment	$300.00	Flea treatment
Replacement light bulbs	$152.38	Replacement light bulbs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,565.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,565.38

Claims and awards for application 5502036 — net $1,565.38 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $165.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $920.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Flea treatment

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Flea treatment

Replacement light bulbs

Amount: $152.38
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replacement light bulbs

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Waikato Real Estate Limited As Agent For Morrison Family Trust Kate Discombe $1,565.38 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,565.38 () to Waikato Real Estate Limited As Agent For Morrison Family Trust Kate Discombe immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,114.62 () to [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

On 1 May 2026 the landlord filed an application seeking compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
On 6 May 2026 the tenants filed a cross application seeking refund of the bond and compensation for breach of the landlord’s obligations to maintain the property.
The hearing proceeded in person. Ms Kate Discomb, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. Ms [The tenant/s] tenant/s] appeared for both tenants. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 6 July 2024 with the fixed term ending on 5 July 2025, there after the tenancy became periodic.
The tenancy ended on 7 April 2026.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) of the Act. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord seeks compensation for: a. Cleaning - $165.00 b. Carpet cleaning and stain removal - $920.00 c. Flea treatment - $300 d. Replacement of missing light bulbs - $152.38.
The tenants took no issue with the amount claimed for missing light bulbs and asked for the amount claimed to be taken from the bond. The amount claimed is ordered.

What was the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy?

The Tribunal was provided with a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs. This report shows the property was provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The report and photographs documented some minor wear and tear including: a. Scuff marks on the wall in the kitchen. b. Two stains on the lounge carpet – one dark and one brown. c. Discrete damage to the paint work on a wall in bedroom two d. A mark on the carpet in bedroom three; and e. One light not working in bedroom three.

What was the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy?

The end of tenancy photographs show: a. The carpets in the lounge, dinging room and stairs were stained and marked. b. The carpet had not been vacuumed and there was visible pet hair. c. The kitchen needed additional cleaning as there was visible marks on the handles and cupboards. d. The oven, hob and rangehood needed additional cleaning as there was visible grease staining and marks. e. Some of the window frames, windows and skirting boards needed cleaning as there were pet marks, dust, and cobwebs visible. f. The showers in both bathrooms needed additional cleaning as there was an obvious build-up of soap scum and grime and hair had been left in the drains. Claim 1 – cleaning costs
The landlord claims the tenants failed to return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and seeks compensation of $165.00 after paying a contractor to complete the work.
The tenant disputes the amounts claimed saying they were happy to return to the property to undertake additional cleaning but had been prevented from doing so by the landlord. Analysis and decisions
The Act does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. What is requires is that the premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings, are cleaned and all person items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, skirting, ceilings, lightshades or behind or underneath appliances. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this extra level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available – particularly photographs presented, and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The tenancy ended on 7 April 2026. The tenant was required to return the property in a clean and tidy condition at that time. There is no obligation on the landlord to allow the tenant to return to the property to carry out additional cleaning.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant failed to return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. The amount claimed is reasonable for the work completed and that is what is ordered. Claim 2 – Carpet cleaning costs
The landlord seeks carpet cleaning costs totalling $920.00 after paying a contractor to clean and stain treat the carpets following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord said clause 50 of the tenancy agreement required the tenants to return the carpets professionally cleaned and flea treated at the end of the tenancy. This condition of the contract was agreed between the parties, as the tenants had been allowed to keep pets.
The tenants dispute the amount claimed. The tenants said they overlooked the requirement to have the carpets professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy. When they were reminded of their obligations the landlord would not let them return to the property to complete the work. Analysis and decision
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the carpets at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Based on the available evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the carpets were not returned in a clean condition. The contractor’s invoice records the contactor commercially cleaned the carpets throughout the property before individually treating 46 coffee stains.
Tribunal is also satisfied the tenant failed to discharge their obligations under clause 50 of the tenancy agreement. As the Tribunal said at paragraphs [15] of this order, the tenants were required to return the property in a clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. There is no statutory obligation requiring landlords let tenants return to a property to carry out additional cleaning and/or repairs once a tenancy has ended.
The amount claimed for carpet cleaning costs is proportionate to the work that was needed. The claim is ordered in full. Claim 3 - Flea treatment
The landlord said that at the end of the tenancy the carpets had a flea infestation and seeks compensation of $300.00 after paying a contractor to complete a flea treatment. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided written evidence to say that after attending the property on 8 April 2026 they were left with flea bite marks to the ankles and lower legs. The Property Manager also gave evidence of being bitten by fleas during the end of tenancy inspection.
A letter from Pest Attack Pest Control was produced by the landlord. The letter stated that when they completed the flea treatment at the property (following professional carpet cleaning) no flea activity was observed. The letter explained how the lack of flea activity could be attributed to professional carpet cleaning. They said this process helps reduce the number of fleas and their eggs in the carpet, but cannot completely eliminate a flea infestation.
The tenants dispute the amount claimed. They say they regularly treated their pets for fleas and produced evidence of their usual flea treatment and while living in the property. They said that they never experienced flea bites while living in the property and challenged the landlord’s evidence noting they also kept pets. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the landlord’s claim for flea treatment proved for the following reasons.
Clause 50 of the tenancy agreement required the tenants to flea treat the property at the end of the tenancy. The tenants failed to provide evidence to prove they had discharged their obligation under the contract.
The Tribunal was persuaded by the evidence of both the landlord and their property manager that they had received flea bites while in attendance at the property following the end of the tenancy. The fact that the pest control contractor did not notice an active infestation can be explained by the fact the property was professionally carpet cleaned prior to the flea treatment being applied. It is likely without the flea treatment the infestation would again become obvious.
The amount claimed is ordered. Tenant’s claims
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Act which requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of 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 of the Act. The tenants do not seek exemplary damages. The ask the Tribunal to consider making an order for compensation totalling $5,000.00.
The tenants claimed there was a leak in the master bedroom originating from the doors that lead to the balcony. The tenants raised this issue with the landlord via the maintenance reporting system on 17 July 2025. The tenant said that as a result of the leak the carpet became wet, and produced photographs of the carpet and of historical damage to the paint on the skirting boards.
The tenants said that despite the leak being ongoing the landlord failed to complete appropriate repairs and, as a result, they felt the landlord was “gaslighting” them about the issue.
The landlord refutes the allegation they failed to maintain the property or take reasonable steps to effect repairs. The landlord produced maintenance logs for the property. These logs showed when maintenance issues were reported by the tenants and the actions the landlord took to resolve the issue.
With regards to the leak in the master bedroom the landlord said they first received a complaint about it on 17 July 2025. The records show a contractor attended that same day. The contractor could not find any obvious signs of a leak and gutters were cleared.
On 2 September 2026 the landlord contacted the tenant to find out if the leak had returned. The tenants replied on 3 September 2025 saying the leak had not returned.
On 20 November 2025 the tenants reported the water leak in the master bedroom had returned following a period of heavy rain. The landlord’s records record they immediately arranged for a contractor to attend. The contractor used a moisture meter to check the walls and could not find evidence of a leak or defects with the property. The tenants were advised and the job was closed.
The landlord said that this was the last complaint they received from the tenants about a leak in the master bedroom until after the tenancy ended. Had they received a further complaint they would have investigated and undertaken repairs. Analysis and decision
A landlord’s general maintenance obligations are to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and to comply with any statutory or regulatory obligations that relate to the premises. 1
Because landlords do not occupy the premises, they are not liable for want of repair unless they are aware of the problem. That knowledge can come directly from their knowledge of the premises or, more commonly, from the tenant informing them of the problem.
Tenant’s have an obligation under section 40(1)(d) to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, or any damage to the premises, or of any need for any repairs.
On the evidence before me I have not reason not to accept the landlord’s claim they took all reasonable steps to resolve the leak in the master bedroom when it was reported to them. The landlord’s maintenance reports prove this.
The tenant’s claimed the leak was ongoing; this had not been borne out by their evidence. The tenants reported the issue on two occasions. On both occasions contractors attended and investigated. The gutters were cleared on the first occasion. No explanation for the leak could be identified on the second occasion. As the landlord was unaware of any leak in the property after 20 November 2025 they were unable to take additional steps to remedy the problem.
The tenants claimed their failure to report the leak as an ongoing issue was because they felt “gas lite” by the landlord. I am not persuaded by this argument. On the evidence before me I am satisfied that: a. The landlord acted promptly to arrange for independent external contractors to investigate and effect repairs when they were reported. b. The landlord communicated clearly with the tenants throughout the repairs/maintenance process. The actions of the landlord show they were trying to resolve the leak and were not trying to deceive or manipulate the tenant.
For these reasons, the tenants claim must fail and is dismissed. 1 Section 45(1) of the Act. Other matters
Because Waikato Real Estate Limited As Agent For Morrison Family Trust Kate Discombe has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The parties did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5502036 — Cleanliness at 10A Park Terrace, Hamilton Central, Hamilton 3204

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5502036 — Cleanliness at 10A Park Terrace, Hamilton Central, Hamilton 3204

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

What was the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy?

What was the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

What was the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy?

What was the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.