What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5534600 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5534600?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5534600?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5534600?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14055383-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5534600 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5534600?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5534600?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5534600?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14055383-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Kummer Crescent, Masterton, Masterton 5810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5534600 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

11 Kummer Crescent, Masterton, Masterton 5810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5534600 — 14-day notice | TenantCheck

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlord. There was a roof leak at the premises. The tenant considers that the landlord breached various obligations around that leak, and that because of the leak she needed to move out. The tenant now claims compensation and exemplary damages from the landlord in relation to these claimed breached.
Both parties appeared at the hearing convened in Masterton today.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records the tenant as [The tenant/s] tenant/s], and the landlord as Nick Devin, via property managers (agents) Archer McHattie Limited. The tenancy commenced on 1 April 2022.
The first report of a roof leak, was in early December 2025 involving the lounge. The landlord appointed plumbers to attend and repair the leak. That work was undertaken, I am not sure if the date, but the invoice for that work is 15 December 2025.
A further leak was reported on 30 January 2026 involving a bedroom. Again the Plumber was appointed for an assessment and fix, that invoice is dated 5 February 2026, recording a leak around the chimney.
Unfortunately, a further leak was reported in early March. The property manager contacted a specialist roofing company, Roof Protect Group Limited, which attended the following day, and messages indicate a recommendation that further work was needed. In any event, there repairs were invoiced at $660.
The tenant issued the landlord a 14 day notice to remedy the leak on or about 4 March 2026.
In an email from 4 March 2026, the tenant writes to the property manager: Will you be arranging for a builder to replace the whole section with a new sheet of Gib once the roof is dry? This will ensure the room is structurally solid and properly insulated again. I'm happy to keep the 15% rent abatement in place as discussed in the prior email until the ceiling and insulation are replaced in the room is safe for my daughter to move back into.
The landlord confirmed on 15 March 2026 that a rent reduction to $450.50 per week as of 3 March 2026, would be applied. I note that Mr Archer indicated that amount of the reduction was presented from the tenant, as a recommendation provided by Tenancy Services. The prior rent was $530 per week so was a reduction of some $80 per week.
On 20 March 2026, the property manager received an invoice for repairs to the damaged bedroom ceiling.
The landlord had the ceiling insulation relayed, as confirmed in an invoice from 9 April 2026.
An email from Kowhai Roofing on 6 May 2026, records that the head roofer would be attending the property on 18 May for an assessment, which I understand related to a roof replacement.
On 11 May 2026 the tenant gave notice to the landlord ending her tenancy as of 9 June 2026, noting in that email “I took your advice and have found a new home”.
I note an invoice from a June 2026 from Roof Protect Group Limited for $4,105.

TENANTS CASE

The tenant states that at the end of January, she contacted the property manager to report a leak in the lounge. A plumber was contacted and tiles were moved which stopped that leak. The tenant consider there were two visits by the plumber.
In the start of March a second leak was noted to the tenants daughter's room. The tenant contacted Tenancy Services after which a 14 notice to remedy was issued. Shortly after that Mr Archer came to the premises, and shortly after that a roofing expert attended and said that extensive repairs would be needed. The leak was fixed temporarily, but each time it rained there was further damage to both the bedroom, lounge and then the laundry.
The property manager was contacted again and advised that the owner was not agreeing to the roof works, and it would be easier for her to find a new rental. The tenant then found another rental property and moved out on 12 June 2026.
The tenant states that when she moved out the premises were put on the market for rent. The tenant seeks a monetary order for compensation and exemplary damages.
In her concluding submissions, Mr Pullin maintained that it was Mr Archer who encouraged her to find another tenancy. Further, in the 14 day notice a permanent (not temporary) fix was required.

LANDLORDS CASE

Mr Archer states that the premises continue to be vacant, but the landlords position is that the landlord has complied with its obligations.
The first leak was in December 2025 which was fixed at the time. Then in January 2026 there was a further leak.
The landlord states that it acted efficiently to address the leak, and has reduced the tenants rent to compensate the tenant to $450.50 per week.
The Landlord disputes that the tenant was encouraged by the landlord to move to another tenancy, notice to end the tenancy was issued to the landlord on 11 May 2026, and the tenancy ended on 12 June 2026.
The landlord notes that this was against the background of significant weather events, and there being limited numbers of expert roof repairers in the region.
Mr Archer referred to the invoices and contemporaneous communications which he submitted show reasonable actions on the part of the landlord.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court 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.

ANALYSIS

There is no dispute between the parties that there were roof leaks at the premises.
Of itself, having a leak in the roof is not an exceptional situation, it is universal that over the life of a residential dwelling, certain parts of that dwelling will fail. In this case, the failure relates to a roof, but it could be for example that an appliance like a stove fails, or hot water cylinders need replacement from time to time etc. The RTA anticipates this situation, and recognises that maintenance will be needed to Tenancy premises. That is reflected in an obligation on tenants to notify the landlord when repairs or maintenance is required (section 40(1)(d)), and an obligation on landlords to undertake that maintenance (section 45(1)(b)). There is also right of entry for landlords to enter the premises to undertake maintenance that is required.
The law requires that dwellings be free from damp (Housing Improvement Regulations 1947), and there are also specific obligations that arise with moisture ingress under the Healthy Homes Standards which apply specifically to rental properties. There is no dispute from the landlord that the leak needs to be addressed, I have seen no evidence suggesting that the landlord has shied away from that responsibility.
The tenants position is that the landlord has not been sufficiently active with having the leaks addressed, but I do not agree that is the case. I have set out the chronology above, which is based on contemporaneous records provided to the tribunal. My assessment or those records show that the landlord has been very responsive with getting plumbers or roofers to the property when the roof leak was reported. The landlord has also been responsive with having the ceiling repaired, given the damage to the ceiling from the water leaks.
No landlord can guarantee that parts of a tenancy will not fail, it would be impossible to make such a guarantee, the best that can be expected, is that when a part of a tenancy fails, the landlord acts efficiently to address it, and I am entirely satisfied the landlord achieve that in this case.
The landlord's obligation under the section 45(1)(b) is to: provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes;
There is no evidence before me that the landlord did not provide the tenancy at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of repair as it relates to the roof, noting that the tenancy commenced in mid 2022, in the first indication of a water leak was not until late 2025.
Once the leak was reported, the landlord acted reasonably to undertake repairs, which involved initial work from a plumber, but when they did not resolve the problem, the landlord has instructed a specialist roofing firm(s) and the roof has been replaced. That was entirely reasonable.
The tenant has not convinced me that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b), and to that extent there could be no basis to order exemplary damages, which would be an order to punish wrongdoing on the part of the landlord.
I have also considered whether additional compensation should be provided, and I find it should not.In the course of the Tenancy the parties have engaged and agreed that a rent reduction should be provided. As I understand matters, the level of the rent reduction was in fact proposed by the tenant, and accepted by the landlord. That saw an $80 per week reduction in rent, and overall that seems reasonable. I cannot see any compelling reason to interfere with the agreement that the parties reached at the time. The circumstances did not change subsequently which would support the tribunal interfering with the agreed compensation, and ordering a higher amount to be paid.
I have not seen evidence that the landlord pushed the tenant to leave this tenancy.
The result is that the application for further compensation is declined.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the tenant has applied for name suppression, the landlord has not. The tenant was not wholly or substantially successful, therefore name suppression is declined.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlord. There was a roof leak at the premises. The tenant considers that the landlord breached various obligations around that leak, and that because of the leak she needed to move out. The tenant now claims compensation and exemplary damages from the landlord in relation to these claimed breached.
Both parties appeared at the hearing convened in Masterton today.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records the tenant as [The tenant/s] tenant/s], and the landlord as Nick Devin, via property managers (agents) Archer McHattie Limited. The tenancy commenced on 1 April 2022.
The first report of a roof leak, was in early December 2025 involving the lounge. The landlord appointed plumbers to attend and repair the leak. That work was undertaken, I am not sure if the date, but the invoice for that work is 15 December 2025.
A further leak was reported on 30 January 2026 involving a bedroom. Again the Plumber was appointed for an assessment and fix, that invoice is dated 5 February 2026, recording a leak around the chimney.
Unfortunately, a further leak was reported in early March. The property manager contacted a specialist roofing company, Roof Protect Group Limited, which attended the following day, and messages indicate a recommendation that further work was needed. In any event, there repairs were invoiced at $660.
The tenant issued the landlord a 14 day notice to remedy the leak on or about 4 March 2026.
In an email from 4 March 2026, the tenant writes to the property manager: Will you be arranging for a builder to replace the whole section with a new sheet of Gib once the roof is dry? This will ensure the room is structurally solid and properly insulated again. I'm happy to keep the 15% rent abatement in place as discussed in the prior email until the ceiling and insulation are replaced in the room is safe for my daughter to move back into.
The landlord confirmed on 15 March 2026 that a rent reduction to $450.50 per week as of 3 March 2026, would be applied. I note that Mr Archer indicated that amount of the reduction was presented from the tenant, as a recommendation provided by Tenancy Services. The prior rent was $530 per week so was a reduction of some $80 per week.
On 20 March 2026, the property manager received an invoice for repairs to the damaged bedroom ceiling.
The landlord had the ceiling insulation relayed, as confirmed in an invoice from 9 April 2026.
An email from Kowhai Roofing on 6 May 2026, records that the head roofer would be attending the property on 18 May for an assessment, which I understand related to a roof replacement.
On 11 May 2026 the tenant gave notice to the landlord ending her tenancy as of 9 June 2026, noting in that email “I took your advice and have found a new home”.
I note an invoice from a June 2026 from Roof Protect Group Limited for $4,105.

TENANTS CASE

The tenant states that at the end of January, she contacted the property manager to report a leak in the lounge. A plumber was contacted and tiles were moved which stopped that leak. The tenant consider there were two visits by the plumber.
In the start of March a second leak was noted to the tenants daughter's room. The tenant contacted Tenancy Services after which a 14 notice to remedy was issued. Shortly after that Mr Archer came to the premises, and shortly after that a roofing expert attended and said that extensive repairs would be needed. The leak was fixed temporarily, but each time it rained there was further damage to both the bedroom, lounge and then the laundry.
The property manager was contacted again and advised that the owner was not agreeing to the roof works, and it would be easier for her to find a new rental. The tenant then found another rental property and moved out on 12 June 2026.
The tenant states that when she moved out the premises were put on the market for rent. The tenant seeks a monetary order for compensation and exemplary damages.
In her concluding submissions, Mr Pullin maintained that it was Mr Archer who encouraged her to find another tenancy. Further, in the 14 day notice a permanent (not temporary) fix was required.

LANDLORDS CASE

Mr Archer states that the premises continue to be vacant, but the landlords position is that the landlord has complied with its obligations.
The first leak was in December 2025 which was fixed at the time. Then in January 2026 there was a further leak.
The landlord states that it acted efficiently to address the leak, and has reduced the tenants rent to compensate the tenant to $450.50 per week.
The Landlord disputes that the tenant was encouraged by the landlord to move to another tenancy, notice to end the tenancy was issued to the landlord on 11 May 2026, and the tenancy ended on 12 June 2026.
The landlord notes that this was against the background of significant weather events, and there being limited numbers of expert roof repairers in the region.
Mr Archer referred to the invoices and contemporaneous communications which he submitted show reasonable actions on the part of the landlord.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court 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.

ANALYSIS

There is no dispute between the parties that there were roof leaks at the premises.
Of itself, having a leak in the roof is not an exceptional situation, it is universal that over the life of a residential dwelling, certain parts of that dwelling will fail. In this case, the failure relates to a roof, but it could be for example that an appliance like a stove fails, or hot water cylinders need replacement from time to time etc. The RTA anticipates this situation, and recognises that maintenance will be needed to Tenancy premises. That is reflected in an obligation on tenants to notify the landlord when repairs or maintenance is required (section 40(1)(d)), and an obligation on landlords to undertake that maintenance (section 45(1)(b)). There is also right of entry for landlords to enter the premises to undertake maintenance that is required.
The law requires that dwellings be free from damp (Housing Improvement Regulations 1947), and there are also specific obligations that arise with moisture ingress under the Healthy Homes Standards which apply specifically to rental properties. There is no dispute from the landlord that the leak needs to be addressed, I have seen no evidence suggesting that the landlord has shied away from that responsibility.
The tenants position is that the landlord has not been sufficiently active with having the leaks addressed, but I do not agree that is the case. I have set out the chronology above, which is based on contemporaneous records provided to the tribunal. My assessment or those records show that the landlord has been very responsive with getting plumbers or roofers to the property when the roof leak was reported. The landlord has also been responsive with having the ceiling repaired, given the damage to the ceiling from the water leaks.
No landlord can guarantee that parts of a tenancy will not fail, it would be impossible to make such a guarantee, the best that can be expected, is that when a part of a tenancy fails, the landlord acts efficiently to address it, and I am entirely satisfied the landlord achieve that in this case.
The landlord's obligation under the section 45(1)(b) is to: provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes;
There is no evidence before me that the landlord did not provide the tenancy at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of repair as it relates to the roof, noting that the tenancy commenced in mid 2022, in the first indication of a water leak was not until late 2025.
Once the leak was reported, the landlord acted reasonably to undertake repairs, which involved initial work from a plumber, but when they did not resolve the problem, the landlord has instructed a specialist roofing firm(s) and the roof has been replaced. That was entirely reasonable.
The tenant has not convinced me that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b), and to that extent there could be no basis to order exemplary damages, which would be an order to punish wrongdoing on the part of the landlord.
I have also considered whether additional compensation should be provided, and I find it should not.In the course of the Tenancy the parties have engaged and agreed that a rent reduction should be provided. As I understand matters, the level of the rent reduction was in fact proposed by the tenant, and accepted by the landlord. That saw an $80 per week reduction in rent, and overall that seems reasonable. I cannot see any compelling reason to interfere with the agreement that the parties reached at the time. The circumstances did not change subsequently which would support the tribunal interfering with the agreed compensation, and ordering a higher amount to be paid.
I have not seen evidence that the landlord pushed the tenant to leave this tenancy.
The result is that the application for further compensation is declined.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the tenant has applied for name suppression, the landlord has not. The tenant was not wholly or substantially successful, therefore name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5534600 — 14-day notice at 11 Kummer Crescent, Masterton, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5534600 — 14-day notice at 11 Kummer Crescent, Masterton, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CASE

LANDLORDS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

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

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CASE

LANDLORDS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.