What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5211878?

The tribunal order states: The application by the tenant for compensation is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5211878?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5211878?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5211878?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12390219-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5211878?

The tribunal order states: The application by the tenant for compensation is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5211878?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5211878?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5211878?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12390219-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

28 Kayforce Road, Ocean View, Dunedin 9035 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5211878 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenancy was for a fixed term from 21/1/2025 to 30/11/2025 at $1,200.00 rent per week.

On 25/3/2025 the tenant applied for a reduction in the term of the fixed term tenancy and compensation of $5,000.00 for moving costs and being unable to use all rooms in the premises.

At the hearing the tenant amended the compensation claim to 40% of the rent she had paid for the premises to the date of vacation.

According to my calculation the amount claimed is $12,960.00.

As the tenant vacated the premises on 29/7/2025, with the agreement of the landlord the issue of reduction of the term of the fixed term tenancy is moot.

The Tribunal therefore only needs to determine the issue of compensation. Standard of proof

This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the tenant must establish, with evidence, that her claim is more likely than not.

The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.

Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.

Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.

The onus is on the applicant, in this case the tenant, to provide the necessary evidence to support her claim. If she fails to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

Cecily Anne Sanford claims that the landlord has breached their obligations by providing premises she believed were “uninhabitable”, because there was an issue with white tailed spiders, the water was undrinkable, and the premises smelt.

The tenant submitted that there was an issue with white tailed spiders in the premises when she moved in which resulted in her being bitten leading to a course of antibiotics.

Although the landlord paid for spray the tenant was unhappy that she had to undertake the work.

Of particular concern to the tenant was the state of the water and lack of filters, which she submitted had caused illness in the family and led to them using only boiled and bottled water.

In addition, the tenant submitted there was a smell from the bathroom attached to the master bedroom, which meant both were unusable.

Although not provided at the hearing the tenant sought an opinion from a house inspector who noted an issue with the seal around the ensuite toilet.

The tenant found dealing with the landlord “frustrating”.

In response the landlord submitted that the tenant was aware when she entered into the tenancy agreement that the property was serviced by a septic tank and the water supply was tank water.

Although not aware of any spider problem the landlord confirmed that the tenant had been reimbursed for the spray used for the spiders.

After being advised by the tenant on 12/3/2025 about the water and smell problems the landlord submitted that the owner sent a plumber to investigate and had the water in the tank analysed.

The landlord provided an analytical report dated 13/3/2025 from Eurofins ELS Limited which recorded no e.coli but coliforms of greater than 80.

In a subsequent email of 17/3, the Company confirmed that the water met the NZ Drinking Water Standards because no e.coli was detected and there was no upper limit in the Standards for total coliforms.

Further the landlord submitted that one of the water tanks was cleaned and refilled with town supply water and the filters in the kitchen were replaced.

An agreement was reached in March with the tenant that she could end the tenancy early without incurring any assignment fees.

On 25/3 the landlord submitted that he visited with a different plumber who subsequently installed filters on the water tanks, which had not previously been required by the local authority.

Following a further visit in April the plumber replaced two traps in the ensuite bathroom vanities.

The landlord confirmed that when they became aware of the report obtained by the tenant the plumber replaced the sealing in the ensuite bathroom toilet.

The plumber gave evidence about his numerous visits to the premises and the work he undertook and confirmed that he initially could not detect any smell.

Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply.

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.

While it is possible that the landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair regarding the water and smell from the drainage to the septic tank, the evidence is simply not enough to move this to a probability.

The results of the water testing confirm the water complied with NZ Water Standards.

The tenant has not provided any evidence, medical or otherwise to show the water was not potable or caused illness.

Moreover, I am persuaded by the steps taken by the landlord when they became aware of the issues two months after the tenancy began that they acted reasonably to address the problems.

Two different plumbers attended the premises, one by his own evidence 6 or 7 times.

Filters were installed in the tanks, although not required by the local authority, kitchen filters were changed, and vents replaced.

The tenant’s concerns are understandable, especially regarding the issue of the smell, which was not finally resolved until early May, after the tenant’s own report was made available to the landlord.

Considering all the evidence I find the tenant has failed to persuade me that the landlord has breached their obligations.

I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.

The tenant’s claim for compensation fails.

No filing fee is awarded because the tenant was unsuccessful with her claim.

Name suppression is not available to the tenant because she did not succeed with the proceedings.

The landlord did not ask for name suppression.

Reasons