Tenant Wins Compensation for Loss of Amenities

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5379183 1

[2026] NZTT 5379183

TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT WAITAKERE | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI WAITĀKERE

APPLICANT: [redacted]

Tenant

RESPONDENTS: [redacted]

Landlords

TENANCY ADDRESS: 1385A Coatesville-[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

ORDER

1. [APPELLANT] and [NAME] must pay [APPELLANT] $1,306.29 immediately for her loss of amenity in the premises.

2. The landlords must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by qualified professionals by 3 July 2026:

a. Carry out an HHS inspection with particular attention to be given to possible water ingress into the ceilings and whether insulating the ceilings is practicable. If water ingress is found, the landlords must repair the issue. If the insulating the ceiling is practicable, the landlords must insulate the ceilings.

b. Investigate and test the water pump and water supply system for any potential faults that may cause the pump to trip off. If any faults are discovered, the landlords must repair the faults.

Reasons:

1. I heard this claim on 7 May 2026 at the Waitakere District Court.

2. All the parties attended the hearing.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5379183 2

Background

3. The premises’ house is a circa 1960’s two-bedroom cottage with board and vertical

baton cladding, terracotta roof tiles, wooden joinery, and sloping skillion rooves. The

location is semi-rural, and the section is more than two acres. The landlords live nearby

and maintain the grounds and the house.

4. The tenancy began on 14 August 2025 and is continuing. The rent is $480.00 per

week.

5. The landlords have rented the cottage out from time-to-time over the last 15 years to

about seven different tenants without issue. The landlords are handy and do much of

the maintenance themselves. The photographs indicate the house has been

reasonably well maintained and is generally in a reasonable condition.

6. The house has a skillion ceiling. Typically, skillion rooves are exempted from the

requirement that ceilings are insulated because they have no appreciable cavity

between the internal ceiling lining and the exterior roof. However, Mr [NAME] devised a

solution: He installed a “false” ceiling underneath the existing ceiling to create a cavity

large enough for insulation to be installed. (More on this later).

7. When the tenant moved in and shortly afterwards, a variety of maintenance issues

arose. The most pressing issue was mice or rats in the new ceiling cavity. The rodents

must have been there for some time because there were many droppings in the cavity,

some of which fell from ceiling gaps into the bedroom, kitchen, and other places. The

tenant says the premises’ water pump regularly cut off. The tenant also notified the

landlords about other various other issues including bathroom leaks, the hot water

cylinder failing, a ceiling leak, draughts, and shower issues.

8. Mr [NAME] promptly attended the premises to fix these problems himself or

occasionally instructed professionals when the landlords considered greater expertise

was required.

9. However, the tenant considers the landlords should have instructed professionals more

often, including for pest control, and says Mr [NAME] failed to clean up properly after

doing work, and has not effectively eradicated the pest droppings and odour.

10. The tenant highlight that not only did she have to deal with the repair and maintenance

issues but also had to endure many intrusions from the landlords and their contractors

to fix the issues and ongoing loss of amenity and inconvenience.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5379183 3

11. On 25 October 2025, the tenant issued the landlords with a “7-day” notice stating:

[NAME] and [NAME],

After numerous attempts to resolve this issue in good faith according to the tenancy law, I am writing to let you know that you are in breach of your responsibilities as a landlord by:

• Not maintaining the property up to the healthy homes standards.

• Failing to keep house free from pests, draughts and mould *before and during* tenancy.

12. The issues for determination are:

a. Did the landlords fail to provide the premises in a reasonable clean

condition?

b. Did the landlords fail to maintain the premises?

c. Did the landlords comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) for

insulation, draught stopping, and water ingress?

d. Should the Tribunal make work orders?

Did the landlords fail to provide the premises reasonably clean?

13. The tenant claimed the landlords did not provide the premises reasonably clean. In

particular, she says in the days after she moved in, she had to clean pre-existing

mould, spider webs, and rodent droppings.

14. Under s 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), landlords must provide

the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.

15. “Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard an objective bystander would

consider was reasonably clean. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean

spotless, immaculate, commercially clean, or hotel standard. It is the overall standard

of cleanliness of the premises that matters. One or two isolated areas of minor

uncleanliness do not mean the premises are not reasonably clean overall.

16. The onus for establishing the claim sits with the person making it on the balance of

probabilities.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5379183 4

17. There are no texts or written communications from the tenant at about the beginning of

the tenancy complaining about the premises’ cleanliness. The landlords instructed a

professional property management company to let the premises. The letting agent took

photographs of the premises shortly before the tenancy began for advertising

purposes, which indicated the premises was reasonably clean. The landlords say the

letting agent mentioned to the landlords that there were some cobwebs in the house,

which they removed before the tenancy began.

18. The tenant inspected the house twice before the tenancy began, but did not notice any

signs of rodents on those occasions. The tenant soon after moving in became aware

that rats or mice droppings, but I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that

there were any visible droppings inside the house at the time the tenancy began.

19. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the premises were not reasonably

clean at the beginning of the tenancy.

20. This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlords fail to maintain the premises?

Legal principles

21. Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), landlords must maintain

the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides:

45 Landlord’s responsibilities

(1) The landlord shall— (a) …

(b) 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…

22. Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair such

known defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. The

author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains:1

1 [NAME] [NAME] in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5379183 5

The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage… A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: 2

“…the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be…”

23. Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord of damage to the premises, or of the need for

any repair promptly after they discover the damage or disrepair.3 Notwithstanding the

tenant’s duty to notify, Landlords have an independent obligation to repair things that

are apparent from observation:4

However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation…

24. If a landlord breaches their duty to maintain the premises, the Tribunal may order

compensation; and if the failure is intentional, exemplary damages up to a maximum of

$7,200.00.5

Pest problem

25. Prior to the tenancy beginning, mice or rats made a home for themselves in Mr

[APPELLANT] improvised insulation cavity. The tenant became aware of the rodent’s

presence soon after she moved in and told the landlords who were unaware of the

infestation until then.

26. The landlords promptly responded by blocking possible entry points, laying bait, and

employing an ultrasonic pest repelling device.

27. The tenant has not seen any mice or rats within the house but says rodent droppings

have fallen from the ceiling cavity including onto the kitchen counter between 23

October and 18 December. The tenant says has continued to smell the droppings.

2 Collins v [COMPANY] DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 3 RTA, s 40(1)(d). 4 See n 1. 5 RTA s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5379183 6

28. The landlords eventually removed the insulation with the intention of eliminating the

droppings, but the tenant still reports an odour. Mr [APPELLANT] theory is that the smell

probably emanates from the LDF ceiling panels which emit a urine-like odour when

damp.

29. After Mr [NAME] removed the insulation, the ceiling panels became less secure, and

several panels fell down, much to the tenant and the tenant’s mother’s chagrin. Mr

[APPELLANT] has since devised a better method to secure the panels.

30. The landlords have taken decisive steps to address the rodent issue. I do not consider

they failed to maintain the premises by electing to carry out the eradication themselves.

They have lived in the country for many years and are well schooled in pest control

techniques. Further, they successfully eradicated the rodents that had been living in the

ceiling.

Water pump

31. The tenant says that the water pump has been intermittently cutting out one or twice

per week.

32. The landlords have had the pump thoroughly looked at and no fault could be found.

33. Notwithstanding that, since the tenant reports ongoing problems, I am going to make a

work order that the landlords instruct their contractor to further explore the issue.

Other maintenance and repair issues

34. The tenant experienced a variety of other repair and maintenance issues. Early in the

tenancy, the toilet floor was damp due to an external leak and the washing machine tap

dripping onto the floor, affecting the adjacent wall and leading to the toilet door not

closing properly. The landlords promptly addressed those issues.

35. The tenant also reported she was experiencing excessive draughts, which the

landlords addressed by installing additional draught seals. The tenant complained

about the shower not draining sufficiently and the shower mixer was leaking. The

landlords fixed those issues within a reasonable time.

36. The landlord’s say they remedied an historical leak near the front entrance due to a

guttering defect that was caused the ceiling to sag.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5379183 7

Assessment

37. I am not satisfied that the landlords failed to maintain the premises. Repair and

maintenance issues arose. However, the landlords responded in a timely way.

38. The resolution of the pest control/roof insulation issue has been lengthy, but the

protracted time was due to the complications attendant on meeting the tenant’s

concerns. The landlords’ repairs were carried out within a reasonable time in that

context.

39. Although the landlords are not in breach of their repair and maintenance duties, the

tenancy contract has an implicit term that the premises will remain in a reasonable

state of repair. The landlords were in breach of that term because of the pest control

problems and other issues.

40. I assess the tenant’s loss of amenity in the premises at 15 per cent of the weekly rent

for the period 14 August to 18 December 2025. That is $72.00 for a period of 18 weeks

and one day. The total amount is $1,306.29.

Does the premises comply with the HHS?

41. The tenant claimed the landlords did not comply with the HHS for insulation, draught

stopping, and drainage and water ingress.

42. Under s 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 landlords must insulate the

premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation)

Regulations 2016.

43. From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard.

There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably

practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that

would otherwise have to be insulated.

44. In this case, the landlords provided an HHS assessment from a [NAME]

that assessed the premises as exempt from the requirement to insulate. Mr [NAME]

used his ingenuity to solve the impracticability of insulation, but he removed the

insulation at the tenant’s request because of the pest infestation.

45. I am not satisfied the landlords are in breach of their insulation duties. However, the

landlords should revisit whether they can reinstall insulation now the pest issue is

resolved.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5379183 8

46. The tenant reported draught issues. The landlords were unaware there were any

draught problems but addressed the draughts by installing further window seals.

47. There was a roof leak which bowed the ceiling near the front entrance. Once again, the

landlords were unaware of the leak but addressed it promptly once they became aware

of it.

48. The water ingress and draught stopping were in substance maintenance issues which

the landlords addressed. The landlords’ HHS report assesses the premises as

compliant.

49. I am not satisfied that the landlords failed to comply with the HHS beyond technical and

transitory non-compliance due to having to address maintenance and repair issues that

had arisen due to ordinary fair wear and tear.

Should the Tribunal make work orders?

50. The tenant says the pump that supplies water to the premises cuts off once or twice

per week. The landlords have had the pump taken away and thoroughly checked. They

surmise the tenant is not opening and closing off taps correctly as a pump system

requires. The tenant insists she is using the taps correctly.

51. I have the power to make work orders under s 78(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies

Act 1986.

52. I am going to order the landlords instruct their contractor to investigate this issue again

to identify the cause of the problem and (if any fault can be identified) fix it.

53. It is not entirely clear that insulation is impracticable now that Mr [NAME] has contrived

a solution to the skillion roof problem. Further, given there was some evidence of

dampness in the ceiling, I consider the possibility of undetected water ingress should

be thoroughly investigated.

54. I am also going to make a work order that the landlords investigate those issues and

remediate them if required.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5379183 9

Filing fee

55. I make no order for the filing fee because the tenant has succeeded in her claim only in

part. The success of the parties in the proceedings is shared equally.

[NAME]

03 June 2026

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5379183 10

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 [NAME] 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, or the failure to make an order, where the amount in dispute on appeal is

less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work, or the failure to make an order, where the value of the

work in dispute on appeal is 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.

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/

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5379183 11

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].

Reasons: