Tenant wins compensation and repair orders for maintenance breaches
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal awarded compensation and ordered repairs for breaches of maintenance duties under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Tribunal found that the landlord had breached their duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to compensation and repairs for breaches of the landlord's duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
📖 What the law says
This section states that a landlord must provide and maintain the rental property in a reasonable state of repair. This means the property should be kept in good condition, considering how old it is and what kind of property it is, and how long it is expected to be lived in.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal awarded compensation and ordered repairs for breaches of maintenance duties under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal awarded compensation and ordered repairs for breaches of maintenance duties under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Tribunal found that the landlord had breached their duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4908977 1
[2025] NZTT 4908977
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT [Event location suppressed]
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
2. [COMPANY] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,535.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
Description Landlord Tenant Compensation: loss of amenity from 30 April 2019 to 19 February 2025
$1,515.00
Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total award $1,535.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $1,535.44
3. BY CONSENT - The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises:
a. Arrange a builder to mould and moisture test the storage cupboard in the hallway and carry out any work to make sure the cupboard is safe and dry and has no holes, and this work must be completed by 5 April 2025.
b. Arrange a trades person to repair and paint the ceiling in the laundry area and the storage cupboard as required and this work must be completed by 5 April 2025.
c. [NAME] to contact the relevant Council and arrange for the water toby to be repaired and this must be done by 17 March 2025.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4908977 2
4. The tenant agrees the landlord can have access to carry out the work after proper notice is given and that the workers can have clear access to the areas, which means some belongings will have to be moved by the tenant.
5. All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant had a support person. The landlord had a representative.
2. This tenancy started in 2013. In 2016 there was a sudden leak from a header tank installed in the ceiling space. Urgent repairs were carried out. On 3 January 2019 the tenant discovered another leak from the header tank. This leak was a slow leak into the large storage cupboard in the hallway. The carpet and the items stored were wet and there was an overwhelming smell of mould in the cupboard. The light bulb inside the cupboard blew when the tenant turned the light on. She turned the power off at the switchboard, called the landlord, and waited more than 24 hours for an electrician to arrive.
3. The tenant has filed her application because she is worried about the header tank leaking again, and for compensation for lost belongings and breaches in the way the landlord handled the repair process. The questions I have to decide are:
• Should I make work orders?
• Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain?
• Should the tenant get compensation?
Should I make work orders?
4. The tenant is especially worried that the header tank will leak again, which I can understand because of the two previous leaks. She wants the header tank removed and she wants the water toby repaired so she can turn the water off if there is another leak. At the hearing the hearing the landlord’s representative explained that the house has a low hot water system which requires a header tank to function properly. He also said it is the Council’s responsibility to repair the water toby. He agreed the ceiling in the laundry area should have been properly repaired after the 2016 leak. He also agreed to have the storage cupboard in the hallway checked by a builder to ensure the cupboard is dry and that there is no mould. I find the builder should also check that there are no holes in the cupboard. This offer to carry out work and to sort the toby repair was helpful. I note the tenant agreed to allow access and that she might need some time to arrange assistance to move belongings. Work orders are made by consent.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4908977 3
Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain?
5. The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires the landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. In particular, the tenant is concerned that the landlord did not act promptly after the leak in 2019 or take her concerns seriously in the years since.
6. This claim is limited to six years because of the Limitations Act 2010. This means I can consider claims relating to the 2019 leak and I will only consider the claim for the ceiling repair from the 2016 leak.
7. This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have considered her verbal evidence at the hearing, as well as the photos, videos and supporting documents. I have also read all the supporting documents provided by the landlord. I find the landlord acted promptly to stop the leak in 2019 and to check the electricity the next day. Fans were provided to dry the area. I cannot find any breach of section 45 here.
8. The landlord had the best evidence at the hearing about the header tank. The tenant could not prove that header tanks are obsolete and are no longer allowed under the building regulations. I find there was no breach by having a header tank and this part of the claim is dismissed.
9. I am concerned the carpet took nine months to install. I am concerned that the hall carpet was left wrinkled and bumpy for about two years, which was a hazard for the tenant who uses a mobility aid. I am concerned that the water toby was not fixed, despite the repeated requests. I am concerned that the landlord left the ceiling partially repaired after the 2016 leak. I am also concerned that the hallway cupboard has not been moisture tested despite the tenant raising concerns about mould and an ongoing smell. I find there was a breach of the landlord’s duty to repair or check these issues.
Should the tenant get compensation?
10. The tenant has claimed compensation because of breaches and because she lost precious things as a result of the 2019 leak. This is her claim to prove.
11. I was provided with a list of damaged belongings, and I have some photos as well. I do not find there was any breach by the landlord relating to the header tank. The best evidence I have is that these are a usual installation in [NAME] houses. The tenant has not proved the header tank was installed incorrectly after the flood in 2016. This means the landlord cannot be held responsible for the slow leak into the storage cupboard in 2019. Even the tenant did not know there was a leak until she walked on the wet carpet. I have not found there was any breach by the landlord when it arranged the immediate, urgent work to stop the leak and dry the house. This means the landlord cannot
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4908977 4
be held responsible for the water and mould damaged belongings. This claim is dismissed.
12. It does seem from the submissions that the landlord did not take the tenant’s concerns seriously. For example, there was a submission in an earlier hearing that the water toby wing nut had been removed to stop the tenant tampering with it. This was retracted at the last hearing, but it shows the landlord blamed the tenant when all she wanted was a functioning toby in case of further leaks. The hall carpet took 9 months to install and years before it was stretched. The ceiling repair from 2016 has not been stopped and painted. The tenant’s concerns about mould and damp in the hall cupboard have not been followed up with a builder’s visit or moisture testing.
13. I find the tenant has proved there was a loss of amenity because she was paying rent but she could not use the house as intended. I allow compensation from 30 April 2019 because the repairs should have been completed by then. Deciding compensation is difficult because the tenant has taken so long to file her application. Also the loss of amenity has been minor but frustrating. I find $5 a week to be fair, for the 303 weeks from May 2019 to the hearing.
Other orders
14. Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
15. The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because she is the most successful party. The landlord’s name is published because there is public interest in social housing.
[NAME] 10 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4908977 5
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenant proved there was a loss of amenity due to the landlord's failure to address issues promptly.
- The landlord agreed to carry out necessary repairs and provide compensation for the tenant's losses.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant could not prove that the header tank was installed incorrectly and thus could not hold the landlord responsible for the slow leak.
- The tenant's claim for compensation for lost belongings due to the 2019 leak was dismissed as she could not prove the landlord's breach in handling the repair process.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal awarded compensation and ordered repairs for breaches of maintenance duties under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the landlord's failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, leading to leaks and damage.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the tenant, finding that the landlord had breached their duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, specifically section 45, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the tenant's proof of the landlord's failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may be entitled to compensation and repair orders if they can prove that the landlord has breached their duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photos, videos, and supporting documents provided by the tenant were crucial in proving the breaches of maintenance duties.