What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5058828?

The tribunal order states: Karyn Amoore’s claim for compensation is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5058828?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4973103 D…: $3,827.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $64.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5058828?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5058828?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11997808-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5058828?

The tribunal order states: Karyn Amoore’s claim for compensation is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5058828?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4973103 D…: $3,827.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $64.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5058828?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5058828?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11997808-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 4, 23 Rotomahana Terrace, Remuera, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5058828 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5058828 — net $2,198.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4973103 dated 08/10/2024	$3,827.00	Previous order application 4973103 dated 08/10/2024
Rent arrears 5 Oct – 26 Oct 2024	$64.29	Rent arrears 5 Oct – 26 Oct 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,198.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,198.29

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5058828 — net $2,198.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4973103 dated 08/10/2024	$3,827.00	Previous order application 4973103 dated 08/10/2024
Rent arrears 5 Oct – 26 Oct 2024	$64.29	Rent arrears 5 Oct – 26 Oct 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,198.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,198.29

Order

Karyn Amoore’s claim for compensation is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,720.00 (3495020-023) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited - As Agent For Jie Dong Holdings Ltd immediately.
Karyn Amoore must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited - As Agent For Jie Dong Holdings Ltd $2,198.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the in-person hearing.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
In a cross-application, the tenant applied for compensation totalling $11,250.00 for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises, in particular, failure to maintain and/or repair the hot water supply to the shower. The tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 11 June 2022. By order of the Tenancy Tribunal, 1 the tenancy ended on 26 October 2024.
The tenant described the premises as being 1.5 bedroom, with one bathroom.
The flat is one of four units and is one-storey. It was built in 1969. Burden and standard of proof
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.
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 fraction 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.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
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. 1 [2024] NZTT 4973103.
In this case, both parties have filed a claim. Each party carries the burden of proof to establish their claim on the balance of probabilities. Landlord’s claim: does the tenant owe rent arrears?
By order of the Tribunal, the tenancy was terminated at 11:59pm on Saturday 26 October 2024.
The Tribunal determined that, as at 4 October 2024, the tenant owed the landlord $3,800.00 in rent arrears. 2
The landlord has produced a rent summary which shows, since 4 October 2024, the tenant made two payments towards rent ($900 on 11 October 2024 and $450 on 18 October 2024) and that by 26 October 2024, the total arrears was $3,864.29, that is, the tenant had accrued an additional $64.29 in rent arrears.
The tenant said she accepts she owed rent arrears at the end of the tenancy, but states she believes the total arrears should be $3,600.00. The tenant says the approximately $200 discrepancy related to a payment in June 2022 which was not accounted for.
The Tribunal has already determined that as at 4 October 2024, rent arrears were $3,800.00. Given that, and given the tenant did not demonstrate any error in the record of arrears between 4 – 26 October 2024, I am satisfied the landlord has proved an additional $64.29 in rent arrears had accrued as at the end of the tenancy.
The amount ordered is proved. The amount ordered in the previous matter (4973103) is incorporated in the order I make today. Tenant’s claim: is the tenant entitled to compensation for failure to maintain the shower?
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises.
Section 85 RTA provides: 85Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. 2 [2024] NZTT 4973103. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 3 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: a. The nature of the breach; b. The duration of the breach; and c. The effect of the breach on the party.
The tenant says the sole shower in the premises did not have hot water throughout the tenancy. The tenant says she could only have cold showers at the premises, or go elsewhere to shower with hot water.
The tenant says shortly after moving in in June 2022 (within the first week), the tenant found the shower mixer was very stiff and would not run hot water.
The tenant says she installed a replacement shower head, but that she could only have cold showers. The tenant says a plumber was sent by the landlord in February 2023 but the plumber did not remedy the lack of hot water.
The tenant says in June 2023, the shower stopped working completely and was entirely unusable for a period of 4 days until a plumber attended. When the plumber attended, the tenant says the shower was reinstated to how it was – that is, emitting cold water only.
The tenant says it remained a cold-water shower (only) until almost the end of the tenancy. The tenant says some hot water was coming through by the end, but it was inadequate.
The tenant says there was a leak behind the shower wall which was likely to be the cause, or contributing to the issue. The tenant says she saw water leaking inside the wall of the shower, but could not say on what date she observed that.
The tenant did not produce any photographs, or other records, to demonstrate the leak she observed. The tenant notes she is an engineer and tradesperson and has experience with plumbing, electrical wiring and building repairs, along with mechanical engineering and related areas. 3 [2020] NZDC 17667.
The tenant seeks compensation of $11,250. The tenant says this is calculated as 20% of rent paid for the duration of the tenancy, being 130 weeks, and an additional amount in compensation for moving costs at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord says the premises was built in 1969 and has a low-pressure water cylinder. The landlord says there was hot water flowing to the shower, but because of the low-pressure system, the hot water to the shower (and elsewhere in the property) does not flow at high pressure. The landlord says this is common for properties of this age, which has older style copper pipes.
The landlord says when the tenant raised any issues regarding plumbing maintenance, they were addressed by a qualified plumber. The landlord denies the premises did not have hot water throughout the tenancy.
The landlord provided records which show: a. On 31 October 2022, the landlord reimbursed the tenant for the cost of installing a new shower head. b. On 21 February 2023, a plumber attended following the tenant raising issue with the toilet flush and shower. In relation to the shower, the plumber replaced a faulty valve and tested it. c. On 20 June 2023, a plumber attended following the tenant again raising issues with the shower. The plumber has provided a statement in which he states he installed a pressure relief valve on the roof of the premises. He states that after installation he tested the shower to ensure it was operating correctly and at full capacity for a low-pressure system and he was satisfied it was.
The landlord says, following the tenant making a claim in the Tribunal regarding the shower, 4 the parties attended a mediation on 25 January 2024, and came to an agreed way forward, which was recorded in a Mediator’s Agreement of the same date. 5 The parties agreed the landlord would inspect the premises on Friday 16 February 2024 to get a better understanding of the issues the tenant complained of regarding the shower mixer.
At the hearing on 18 June 2025, the landlord produced two short videos recorded on 16 February 2024. The two videos show the landlord testing the flow and temperature of water from the shower mixer. The landlord says when testing the water, they found the shower did have hot water and therefore no further action was taken. 4 Application numbers 4725949/4761418. 5 A copy of which was produced at the hearing. I note that the Mediator’s Agreement records the parties agreed the applications could be closed but both parties had the right to make new applications if they could not resolve the issues.
The landlord says after the tenant moved out, renovations were undertaken but those renovations did not relate to the shower mixer and/or the hot water systems.
I have considered all the documentary evidence filed, the parties in-person evidence and their submissions. I am not satisfied the landlord was in breach of their obligations under s45 of the RTA. The tenant has not proved it is more likely than not that the shower did not have hot water for the period alleged, and I therefore dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation.
I find the tenant has not proved the shower did not have hot water for the duration of the tenancy. The tenant says they could see water leaking inside the wall of the shower but could not say on what date she observed that. The tenant did not produce any photographs, or other records, to demonstrate the leak she alleged was contributing, or any other evidence to show the shower did not have hot water.
The tenant also did not produce any evidence to demonstrate she had incurred the costs and inconvenience of being forced to shower elsewhere, such as receipts for entry to pools, or costs incurred at motels. Without such evidence, I am not satisfied the tenant incurred the costs she seeks compensation for.
I am satisfied the landlord has proved they responded to requests for maintenance. I find the landlord was not in breach of their obligations under s45 of the RTA and dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation in relation to the shower. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?
As the landlord has succeeded with the claim the tenant must reimburse the landlord’s filing fee for this application.
The tenant was ordered to reimburse the landlord’s filing fee in the previous applciation (4973103) also, which is included in this order. Should the tenant’s identifying details be suppressed?
The tenant sought suppression of their name, however, the tenant was not wholly or substantially successful in their claim.
I have considered whether I should grant name suppression order for the tenant having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under section 95A(4) of the RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue I need to consider is whether suppressing the tenant’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders but that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the tenant and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5058828 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 23 Rotomahana Terrace, Remuera,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5058828 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 23 Rotomahana Terrace, Remuera,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions