What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5513183 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5513183?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5513183?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks, Boarding House, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5513183?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14266265-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5513183 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5513183?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5513183?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks, Boarding House, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5513183?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14266265-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 19 Parrish Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5513183 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenants’ claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a tenant application claiming that the landlord failed to maintain the property and that the property is not compliant with Healthy Homes Standards. The tenants seek a 50% rent reduction, compensation and exemplary damages.
This is a property that has a main house that has been converted into two separate units and another freestanding separate house at the rear of the property.
The owner purchased the whole property appropriately 8 years ago. At the time of purchasing the property the landlord carried out a comprehensive renovation the house with two units, with new kitchens, and bathrooms and ensuring compliance with all Healthy Homes standards.
This tenancy was a 12-month fixed term tenancy that commenced on 5 March 2025 and ended on 11 May 2026 after the landlord gave notice to the tenants that the property was to be sold. Standard of proof:
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the tenants) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary Damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach.
Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional.
Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA.
In this case the tenants have sought a 50% rent rebate for the issues they say they experienced with the property. However, the Tribunal will only consider awarding a significant rent rebate of this magnitude in cases where there is clear evidence of very serious and ongoing maintenance failures or breaches that substantially affect the tenant’s ability to use and enjoy the premises.
The standard for such a large rebate is high and is generally reserved for extreme situations, such as where the premises are uninhabitable, or the landlord has shown a clear disregard for their obligations. Failure to Maintain/Breach Healthy Homes Standards:
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, 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, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these 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. Mould, damp and moisture:
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1) (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy: or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply 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 moisture ingress and drainage standard require 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.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenant says that during the 15-month tenancy there were ongoing issues with dampness, mould and moisture in the property. The tenants say that they first raised the issue with moisture on 20 March 2025 when they found a mushroom growing on the wall in the bathroom and had drainage issues with the shower. On 25 March 2025 the landlord investigated and had repairs carried out and completed on 2 April 2025 to silicone the leak in the corner of the shower and clear the outside of the gully trap.
The tenants say the mushroom grew four times during the tenancy, after the repairs. The tenants raised moisture and mould issues with the landlord again on 22 May 2025. The landlord came and investigated the issue and advised the tenants of ways to mitigate the moisture and mould in the house.
The tenants claim that they did not complain again about the mushrooms, moisture, or mould because the landlord did not fix anything but put it back on them to remedy issues with cleaning and ventilation. The tenants say they opened doors and windows when they were able, due to weather conditions and purchased a dehumidifier which they used regularly along with the heat pump to keep the property dry and warm.
The tenants say that there was a “power imbalance” in the relationship between landlord and tenant.
The landlord said the owner and property management company were very proactive about maintaining the property and complying with their obligations under the RTA regarding maintenance and Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”).
Furthermore, the landlord says this is a fantastic property and if it was such a problem, why did the tenants not serve them with a 14 days’ notice to remedy during the tenancy. The tenants accept that they did not file the notice. Draught stopping:
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1) (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy: or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply 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 draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenants claim there were draught stopping issues with the bedroom window not closing properly and the door having a gap around the frame creating a draught. This situation they say contributed to the coldness and draught in the property. The tenants claim that they could not use one of the bedrooms because of the draught and mould in the room.
The tenants complained to the landlord about the draught, cold and dampness on 22 May 2025 and 25 July 2025.
The tenants provided the following evidence with their application: -Proof that at the start of the tenancy there was additional cleaning needed to be done after the previous tenants departed. This is not in dispute with the landlord. -Some minor repairs carried out at request of tenants at start of tenancy, not in dispute. -Email chain of complaints about mould on clothing and dresser, water pooling on windowsill and heat pump not working. The heat pump needed the batteries changed and it worked perfectly. -Landlord following up on complaints and investigating. On going complaints with responses from landlord after investigating. The landlord stating that there is nothing more the landlord can do as the property is in good condition, fully HHS compliant, the claims have been fully investigated and there has never been this issue before. -Photos of minor patches of mould on a wall in bedroom and kitchen, a net curtain and a windowsill, slightly open window, and missing draught stopping. Additionally, photos of water from the dehumidifier and the mushroom on the wall.
The landlord said they followed up and investigated all complaints. The landlord had not received a complaint from other tenants at the property before or after these tenants, complaining about these issues. The landlord investigated and could find no fault with the property. The problems complained of where simply normal winter issues with any property.
The landlord has provided the Tribunal with a vast number of documents to support their position and respond to the tenant claims, such as: -Maintenance timeline from start to end of tenancy, showing the complaints and investigation and maintenance carried out. -Inspection reports dated from 3 April 2025 to 11 May 2026 -Healthy Homes Assessment Report dated 21 August 2026. -Heating specifications report and the actual Heat pump installed, which exceeded the heating requirements. -Insulation certificate and confirmation of the underfloor insulation and moisture ground barrier exemption.
These documents provided confirmation of the reported complaints and steps taken to remedy any actual problems found, such as reinstalling a loose toilet roll holder, replacing the smoke alarm, batteries in the heat pump remote and letterbox. Repairs to the shower box, kitchen power point and cleaning gutters. Analysis of evidence:
The tenants have claimed that the landlord failed to maintain the premises and breached the Healthy Homes Standards. However, after reviewing the evidence provided, I am not satisfied that the tenants have established these claims.
The evidence shows that the landlord was proactive and responsive throughout the tenancy. Whenever issues were raised, the landlord arranged for investigations and repairs to be carried out in a timely manner. There is documentation of regular communication between the landlord and the tenants, as well as records of maintenance work being undertaken as needed.
The Tribunal has previously held that a landlord is not in breach of their obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 if they act promptly and reasonably to remedy issues once notified. In Collins v Professionals Doublewinkel Ltd 1 , the Tribunal found that a landlord who responded to maintenance requests in a timely manner and arranged for repairs as soon as practicable was not in breach, even where issues had arisen during the tenancy.
Similarly, in Smith v Housing New Zealand 2 , the Tribunal noted that the obligation to maintain is not absolute, and that landlords are required to take reasonable steps to address problems once they become aware of them. The mere existence of a defect does not amount to a breach if the landlord acts appropriately to remedy it.
The Tribunal in [2020] NZTT Wellington 4264369 3 confirmed that a landlord must repair within a reasonable time after becoming aware of the need for repair. The decision emphasised that the seriousness of the issue, the landlord’s efforts to investigate and remedy the problem, and any external factors affecting the repair process should all be considered. The Tribunal found that a landlord is not in breach of their obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 if they respond promptly and reasonably to issues once notified, even if defects arise during the tenancy.
Having considered all the evidence, I find that it supports the landlord’s position. I accept that there were issues experienced by the tenants during the tenancy, particularly over the winter months. However, it is not uncommon for older homes, even those that are well maintained, to experience some challenges during colder and wetter periods.
The landlord has demonstrated that they took all practicable steps to comply with their obligations under both the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the tenancy agreement. The records show that the landlord responded promptly to maintenance requests, arranged for necessary repairs and investigations, and maintained regular communication with the tenants.
While I acknowledge the tenants’ concerns, there is no persuasive evidence to suggest that the landlord failed to meet their responsibilities. On the contrary, the landlord’s actions reflect a genuine and consistent effort to ensure the premises were maintained to the required standard.
Accordingly, I find that the tenants have not proven their claims of failure to maintain or breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. 1 Collins v Professionals Doublewinkel Ltd [2014] NZTT Manukau 2376 2 Smith v Housing New Zealand [2018] NZTT Wellington 4129 3 [2020] NZTT Wellington 4264369 Filing fee/suppression:
Under s95A RTA the rules for name suppression differ based on the outcome of the hearing. In this case I have dismissed the tenants claims and so they automatically loss the right to suppression as a successful party would expect. The Tribunal retains a broad discretion to grant or deny suppression based on the balance of public and the party’s interest.
I am declining suppression due to the lack of evidence presented to support the tenant case, particularly when consideration is given to the professional expertise of the parties and the effort and expense incurred by the landlord in preparation of the hearing.
As a consequence of my findings, I am unable to reimburse the filing fee and suppress the names and details of the tenants. Under 102(4) RTA the reimbursement of the filing fee is typically reserved for parties who have wholly or substantially been successful. Because the tenants were unsuccessful, they failed to meet the necessary burden of proof, they are responsible for their own filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

This is a tenant application claiming that the landlord failed to maintain the property and that the property is not compliant with Healthy Homes Standards. The tenants seek a 50% rent reduction, compensation and exemplary damages.

This is a property that has a main house that has been converted into two separate units and another freestanding separate house at the rear of the property.

The owner purchased the whole property appropriately 8 years ago. At the time of purchasing the property the landlord carried out a comprehensive renovation the house with two units, with new kitchens, and bathrooms and ensuring compliance with all Healthy Homes standards.

This tenancy was a 12-month fixed term tenancy that commenced on 5 March 2025 and ended on 11 May 2026 after the landlord gave notice to the tenants that the property was to be sold. Standard of proof:

As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the tenants) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.

The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary Damages

The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach.

Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.

Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional.

Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA.

In this case the tenants have sought a 50% rent rebate for the issues they say they experienced with the property. However, the Tribunal will only consider awarding a significant rent rebate of this magnitude in cases where there is clear evidence of very serious and ongoing maintenance failures or breaches that substantially affect the tenant’s ability to use and enjoy the premises.

The standard for such a large rebate is high and is generally reserved for extreme situations, such as where the premises are uninhabitable, or the landlord has shown a clear disregard for their obligations. Failure to Maintain/Breach Healthy Homes Standards:

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, 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, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.

Breaching any of these 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. Mould, damp and moisture:

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1) (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy: or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply 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 moisture ingress and drainage standard require 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.

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).

The tenant says that during the 15-month tenancy there were ongoing issues with dampness, mould and moisture in the property. The tenants say that they first raised the issue with moisture on 20 March 2025 when they found a mushroom growing on the wall in the bathroom and had drainage issues with the shower. On 25 March 2025 the landlord investigated and had repairs carried out and completed on 2 April 2025 to silicone the leak in the corner of the shower and clear the outside of the gully trap.

The tenants say the mushroom grew four times during the tenancy, after the repairs. The tenants raised moisture and mould issues with the landlord again on 22 May 2025. The landlord came and investigated the issue and advised the tenants of ways to mitigate the moisture and mould in the house.

The tenants claim that they did not complain again about the mushrooms, moisture, or mould because the landlord did not fix anything but put it back on them to remedy issues with cleaning and ventilation. The tenants say they opened doors and windows when they were able, due to weather conditions and purchased a dehumidifier which they used regularly along with the heat pump to keep the property dry and warm.

The tenants say that there was a “power imbalance” in the relationship between landlord and tenant.

The landlord said the owner and property management company were very proactive about maintaining the property and complying with their obligations under the RTA regarding maintenance and Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”).

Furthermore, the landlord says this is a fantastic property and if it was such a problem, why did the tenants not serve them with a 14 days’ notice to remedy during the tenancy. The tenants accept that they did not file the notice. Draught stopping:

The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).

The tenants claim there were draught stopping issues with the bedroom window not closing properly and the door having a gap around the frame creating a draught. This situation they say contributed to the coldness and draught in the property. The tenants claim that they could not use one of the bedrooms because of the draught and mould in the room.

The tenants complained to the landlord about the draught, cold and dampness on 22 May 2025 and 25 July 2025.

The tenants provided the following evidence with their application: -Proof that at the start of the tenancy there was additional cleaning needed to be done after the previous tenants departed. This is not in dispute with the landlord. -Some minor repairs carried out at request of tenants at start of tenancy, not in dispute. -Email chain of complaints about mould on clothing and dresser, water pooling on windowsill and heat pump not working. The heat pump needed the batteries changed and it worked perfectly. -Landlord following up on complaints and investigating. On going complaints with responses from landlord after investigating. The landlord stating that there is nothing more the landlord can do as the property is in good condition, fully HHS compliant, the claims have been fully investigated and there has never been this issue before. -Photos of minor patches of mould on a wall in bedroom and kitchen, a net curtain and a windowsill, slightly open window, and missing draught stopping. Additionally, photos of water from the dehumidifier and the mushroom on the wall.

The landlord said they followed up and investigated all complaints. The landlord had not received a complaint from other tenants at the property before or after these tenants, complaining about these issues. The landlord investigated and could find no fault with the property. The problems complained of where simply normal winter issues with any property.

The landlord has provided the Tribunal with a vast number of documents to support their position and respond to the tenant claims, such as: -Maintenance timeline from start to end of tenancy, showing the complaints and investigation and maintenance carried out. -Inspection reports dated from 3 April 2025 to 11 May 2026 -Healthy Homes Assessment Report dated 21 August 2026. -Heating specifications report and the actual Heat pump installed, which exceeded the heating requirements. -Insulation certificate and confirmation of the underfloor insulation and moisture ground barrier exemption.

These documents provided confirmation of the reported complaints and steps taken to remedy any actual problems found, such as reinstalling a loose toilet roll holder, replacing the smoke alarm, batteries in the heat pump remote and letterbox. Repairs to the shower box, kitchen power point and cleaning gutters. Analysis of evidence:

The tenants have claimed that the landlord failed to maintain the premises and breached the Healthy Homes Standards. However, after reviewing the evidence provided, I am not satisfied that the tenants have established these claims.

The evidence shows that the landlord was proactive and responsive throughout the tenancy. Whenever issues were raised, the landlord arranged for investigations and repairs to be carried out in a timely manner. There is documentation of regular communication between the landlord and the tenants, as well as records of maintenance work being undertaken as needed.

The Tribunal has previously held that a landlord is not in breach of their obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 if they act promptly and reasonably to remedy issues once notified. In Collins v Professionals Doublewinkel Ltd 1 , the Tribunal found that a landlord who responded to maintenance requests in a timely manner and arranged for repairs as soon as practicable was not in breach, even where issues had arisen during the tenancy.

Similarly, in Smith v Housing New Zealand 2 , the Tribunal noted that the obligation to maintain is not absolute, and that landlords are required to take reasonable steps to address problems once they become aware of them. The mere existence of a defect does not amount to a breach if the landlord acts appropriately to remedy it.

The Tribunal in [2020] NZTT Wellington 4264369 3 confirmed that a landlord must repair within a reasonable time after becoming aware of the need for repair. The decision emphasised that the seriousness of the issue, the landlord’s efforts to investigate and remedy the problem, and any external factors affecting the repair process should all be considered. The Tribunal found that a landlord is not in breach of their obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 if they respond promptly and reasonably to issues once notified, even if defects arise during the tenancy.

Having considered all the evidence, I find that it supports the landlord’s position. I accept that there were issues experienced by the tenants during the tenancy, particularly over the winter months. However, it is not uncommon for older homes, even those that are well maintained, to experience some challenges during colder and wetter periods.

The landlord has demonstrated that they took all practicable steps to comply with their obligations under both the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the tenancy agreement. The records show that the landlord responded promptly to maintenance requests, arranged for necessary repairs and investigations, and maintained regular communication with the tenants.

While I acknowledge the tenants’ concerns, there is no persuasive evidence to suggest that the landlord failed to meet their responsibilities. On the contrary, the landlord’s actions reflect a genuine and consistent effort to ensure the premises were maintained to the required standard.

Accordingly, I find that the tenants have not proven their claims of failure to maintain or breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. 1 Collins v Professionals Doublewinkel Ltd [2014] NZTT Manukau 2376 2 Smith v Housing New Zealand [2018] NZTT Wellington 4129 3 [2020] NZTT Wellington 4264369 Filing fee/suppression:

Under s95A RTA the rules for name suppression differ based on the outcome of the hearing. In this case I have dismissed the tenants claims and so they automatically loss the right to suppression as a successful party would expect. The Tribunal retains a broad discretion to grant or deny suppression based on the balance of public and the party’s interest.

I am declining suppression due to the lack of evidence presented to support the tenant case, particularly when consideration is given to the professional expertise of the parties and the effort and expense incurred by the landlord in preparation of the hearing.

As a consequence of my findings, I am unable to reimburse the filing fee and suppress the names and details of the tenants. Under 102(4) RTA the reimbursement of the filing fee is typically reserved for parties who have wholly or substantially been successful. Because the tenants were unsuccessful, they failed to meet the necessary burden of proof, they are responsible for their own filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5513183 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 2, 19 Parrish Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5513183 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 2, 19 Parrish Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5513183 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 2, 19 Parrish Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5513183 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 2, 19 Parrish Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.