How much money was awarded in case 5533195?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5533195?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5533195?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14199530-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5533195?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5533195?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5533195?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14199530-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 71, 305 Evans Bay Parade, Hataitai, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5533195 — Mould & damp

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5533195 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 71, 305 Evans Bay Parade, Hataitai, Wellington 6021 is reduced and now ends at 16 October 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to on 4 April 2027.

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.

The relevant circumstances of this matter are: a. The lease began on 30 March 2026. The premises are a three-story townhouse. It appears that there are some issues with weathertightness. b. On the first day of the lease the tenant emailed the property manager with issues including a leaking showerhead, a full rubbish wheelie bin, cleanliness, and other issues. c. On 7 April 2026, the property manager passed on the details of the landlord’s tradesman, Steve, and over the next few weeks he and the tenant corresponded relating to the maintenance issues. The text correspondence between Steve, and the tenant shows that most items were reasonably quickly dealt with, however there were issues with a door which would not close properly which required extra labour. d. On 29 April 2026, the landlord emailed asking the tenant to update and advise of what had been done so that there was a record. The tenant’s response on 30 April 2026 was that there were some items are resolved however the email does not list which items had been left unrepaired. The landlord followed up asking for more information and the tenant’s response was that it was taking too much time, and he was unhappy with the amount of effort he was needed put into communications. It appears that there was a meeting on the same day between the property manager and the tenant. Following the meeting a list of items that the property manager understood to have been fixed was emailed. The tenant responded saying that there were two of the items on the list; downlights in the top floor bedroom, and broken bed slats in one of the small bedrooms which had not been attended to. e. On 7 May 2026, there was an issue with one of the two ovens in the kitchen. The property manager responded on same day and an electrician attended. f. On 13 May 2026, there was an issue with a bathroom door which would not open from the inside. Steve attended on the same day and fixed the issue. g. On 17 May 2026, the tenant emailed the landlord raising a concerned that his gas consumption was higher than the previous property he had rented. What followed over the next month was an exchange of emails and investigations made by the landlord which involved having a plumbing and gas fitter carry out safety checks. The outcome of the investigations was that there were no leaks or faults. The tenant did not accept this and wanted the landlord to carry out tests on the efficiency of the gas units which the landlord refused. h. On 9 June 2026, the tenant reported a leak from system in one of the toilets. A plumber attended on the same day and fixed the issue. i. On 25 and 26 June 2026, the Wellington region was affected by a significant storm system. On the second day of storm, which was a Friday, the tenant noticed that water was coming through down like fittings and a second story bathroom which sat beneath a balcony. The tenant reported the issue to the property manager. An electrician attended and disconnected the power from the bathroom. Investigations showed that the leak is related to a drain on the balcony. I note that for a variety of reasons, some of which are discussed below, this remains unrepaired. On the same day the tenant requested to terminate the lease early. j. On 1 July 2026, the tenant raised an issue with the clothes dryer which would stop midcycle. The property manager responded on the same day, and the dryer was replaced the following day. In the emails sent on this day the tenant voiced concerns and frustrations relating to the condition of the property and the disruption that the issues were causing. The correspondence from this point shows a worsening of the relationship with the tenant clearly considering that the property manager and Steve were responsible for the condition of the property. k. On 3 July 2026, the tenant raised an issue relating to the front door. The property manager responded the same day and this was attended to by one of Steve’s employees shortly after, however, the tenancy is that the repairs have led to drafts now coming through the front door. From this point on it appears that the tenant began to video the property manager and Steve’s employees, and other trades while they were doing work. The tradespeople and property manager took exception to this practice which resulted in increased friction between the parties.

The tenant has brought this application seeking for the reduction of the term of the lease and exemplary damages for failures to maintain.

An issue is that the property requires repairs specifically to the balcony drain. However, this will require relatively extensive building work with an amount of demolition. While the property has two other bathrooms this means that there will be some loss of amenity was work is carried out. The relationship between the parties is such that it is clearly untenable for this work to be carried out while the tenant remains in the property. At the hearing there were without prejudice discussions as to whether or not the parties could agree on a resolution of the application. While both agreed that the lease should be shortened, the parties could not agree on a timeframe in which this should continue. Reduction of the term of the lease

The tenant says he would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced. The landlord would suffer hardship if the term is reduced as new tenants would need to be obtained.

I am presented with a situation where the issue is not so much the comparative hardship between the parties, rather it is that the relationship between the parties is such that the tenant insists on filming all tradesmen and the property manager in a way that they find intrusive, and this is meant that trades have expressed an unhappiness with attending site. On the other side the tenant has been faced with a continuous stream of maintenance issues throughout the relatively short life of the tenancy. The landlord offered to terminate the tenancy with a six-week period, the tenant wanted termination immediately although he acknowledged that there would be difficulties in finding alternative accommodation and relocating.

Taking into account the relative hardships and inside, the willingness of the parties to compromise on timeframe, the worsening relationship, the need for relatively urgent repairs, and the merits and justice of the situation, I conclude that a five-week period for termination is reasonable. Therefore, I order that the term of the tenancy will end on 16 October 2026.

Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. I conclude that it is inappropriate for compensation to be awarded in this instance. This is due to the elements I’ve considered above, but also because there are clearly maintenance issues which need to be attended to at the property. Failure to maintain

[The tenant/s]he tenant 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, and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair

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.

Taking into account the circumstances listed above I note that: a. There were issues with the cleanliness of the property relating to an empty bin and dusty areas. However, the bin was emptied later the same day, and it appears the cleanliness issues were relatively minor from the entry photos I’ve been provided with. b. The property manager and the landlord’s tradesman have responded to issues raised in a reasonably prompt manner. For instance the issue with the bathroom door was dealt with only a few hours after it was raised, and the clothes dryer was replaced the day after the issue was raised.

In reaching this conclusion I note that the tenant had made complaints to Wellington City Council whose public health team conducted an inspection and found that three rooms had humidity levels which were marginally higher than the Australia New Zealand standard of 60%. The highest of these was 61.4% and a bathroom. I note that there were some comments made about the detailing of drains on balconies, which are weather tightness risks which have not yet eventuated in damage.

Clearly there are issues with the maintenance of the property, however, it appears that these issues relate to a number of different issues. Had the maintenance issues revolved around for instance repeated weather tightness problems, or the same appliance repeatedly failing, and the property manager or landlord failing to attend to it this claim would have some merit. However, in this instance it appears that there were a number of unrelated failures to appliances, and to building elements. Any breaches of section 45 have not come about due to any intentional acts by the landlord. Therefore, I do not find that this is a suitable matter for exemplary damages to be awarded

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 71, 305 Evans Bay Parade, Hataitai, Wellington 6021 is reduced and now ends at 16 October 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to on 4 April 2027.

The tenant has brought this application seeking for the reduction of the term of the lease and exemplary damages for failures to maintain.

The tenant says he would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced. The landlord would suffer hardship if the term is reduced as new tenants would need to be obtained.

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.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5533195 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat Unit 71, 305 Evans Bay Parade, Hataitai,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5533195 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat Unit 71, 305 Evans Bay Parade, Hataitai,

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.

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.