Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5465984 — 14-day notice at Unit 5, 120 Randwick Road, Moera, Lower Hutt 5010
Published 13 May 2026 · Application 5465984
Dismissed
- 14-day notice
- State of repair
- Cleanliness
- Healthy homes
- Property damage
- Exemplary damages
- Mould
- Leaks
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Dismissed
From published order
Location
Lower Hutt
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
B Smallbone
Dispute themes
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Category | Amount | Awarded to | Reason |
|---|
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
The claim is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The following issues have been raised by Jaimie in the application: a. Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and should compensation be ordered? b. Has the landlord maintained the premises in a reasonable state of repair regarding: i. The water leak that was reported on 22 September 2025 and the leak reported on 16 February 2026 after a storm. ii. Replacing the carpet. iii. The shower. c. Did the landlord meet its obligation regarding Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)? i. The tenant has claimed that the premises failed to meet HHS at the start of the tenancy. d. Did the premises cause health issues for the tenant? Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and should compensation be ordered?
- Jaime Eileen Alofipo claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. Jaime provided photos of the state of cleanliness of the premises when she began her tenancy in Unit 5. There were areas including the oven, flooring and a vent that were not reasonably clean.
- The background is that the tenant began a tenancy in Unit 3 at the same address on or about 3 August 2025. There were defects that needed to be remedied in that unit. Having looked at available units in the complex she decided to move to unit 5. This was about a week after the tenancy at Unit 3. The tenant advised the landlord about the condition of unit 5. The landlord told her that the property had been commercially cleaned but agreed that the work had not been carried out to a suitable standard. The landlord provided compensation. The landlord did not charge the tenant for the time she occupied unit 3.
- The tenant submitted that the compensation was for Unit 3 not being safe or suitable. The landlord said that the $445.00 rent holiday, combined with the $41.00 given to the tenant for cleaning products was compensation for the condition of both units.
- There is little other evidence about the reason for the compensation apart from the parties’ recollections. However it is noted that it was not until the tenant made an application to the Tribunal that the tenant raised that she had not been adequately compensated for the state of unit 5.
- I am satisfied that the amount of compensation that the landlord gave is sufficient to cover the inconvenience resulting from part of the premises not being reasonably clean and moving from unit 3.
- Regarding exemplary damages, a party must prove that the other party committed an unlawful act intentionally. The fact that the landlord had the premises commercially cleaned before the tenancy shows an intention to comply with the RTA, not to intentionally breach it.
- Therefore, exemplary damages could not be ordered. Has the landlord maintained the premises regarding the water leak that was reported on 22 September 2025 and the leak reported on 16 February 2026 after a storm?
- Jaime Eileen Alofipo claims that the landlord has breached another obligation under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
- On 22 September the tenant advised the landlord of a leak upstairs that had wet the hall carpet. The next day the landlord’s plumber attended and sealed a hole in the concrete block wall. This stopped the leak. The tenant texted the landlord saying she would dry the carpet with a fan heater. The landlord responded by offering to have a professional carpet cleaner attend to the carpet. The tenant responded that the concrete needed drying as well and she would do the drying. The landlord offered to reimburse her if she purchased a fan heater.
- I am satisfied that the landlord fulfilled the RTA maintenance obligation by stopping the leak and offering to dry the carpet and offering to pay for a fan heater. No compensation is ordered because no breach occurred.
- On 21 October 2025 the landlord carried out a routine inspection. The tenant did not mention to the landlord, nor the landlord notice, any problem with carpet that had occurred during the tenancy or had resulted from the water leak on 22 September. The landlord said the discussion was about the carpet having pink stains that predated the tenancy which the tenant would have no liability for..
- There were no leaks at the property in October, November, December or January however on or about 16 February, following a severe storm in Wellington, the tenant notified the landlord of another leak. The carpet upstairs was wet but the downstairs carpet was also wet. The landlord sent a builder the next day. Once again the tenant declined the landlord’s offer to remedy the wet carpet. He tenant believed it was the same wall leaking but on 23 February the landlord’s builder repaired the roof and gutters that was the source of the leak.
- The tenant believes that the use of silicone to remedy the roof and concrete wall was not a suitable long-term remedy. It is a landlord’s choice what method to use to make repairs. Neither area has leaked since that work was carried out.
- The evidence shows that the landlord responded to both leaks promptly and the areas have been repaired. There has not been a breach of the maintenance obligation by the landlord.
Has the landlord maintained the premises regarding the carpet?
- The tenant claims that the landlord failed to replace the carpet in a timely way after being notified that it was rotten and mouldy.
- In the email to the landlord about the leak on 16 February, the tenant wrote that the carpet on the ground floor was already rotten underneath. She stated that it was starting to smell very damp and musty. She said she didn’t want to have to pay for power to keep drying it and she didn’t want to live with mouldy wet carpet upstairs and downstairs. She asked for the repair to be carried out as soon as possible. As stated above, the builder attended the next day and although the tenant had complained that she did not want to keep paying for power, she declined to have the landlord dry and deodorize the wet carpet.
- The tenant emailed the landlord on 23 February on behalf of the tenants at 120 Randwick Road. She set out concerns that the tenants had regarding security and structural issues. (The security issue was addressed by the landlord installing security gates at the property.) The tenant referred to the leaking and carpet at her property, stating that “they have never been fixed”. She wrote that, “the carpet is rotting and mouldy which is a concern for our health yet I have never had any incentive that there was anything going to be done about this”.
- This was the first reference that the landlord had that the tenant wanted the carpet to be replaced because of its condition. The tenant referred to phone calls about the carpet, but the landlord said she had no recollection of a complaint about rotting carpet. Where there is only ‘he said she said’ evidence, it is usually difficult to establish a fact.
- On 9 March the tenant sent photos to the landlord of the mouldy backing on the carpet. The landlord stated that this was the first she had been given information by the tenant about the condition of the carpet. The same day that she received the photos, the landlord arranged for access to measure the downstairs area for carpet for replacement. It was replaced on 20 March and compensation of 2 days rent was given for the inconvenience of moving items so that the carpet could be replaced.
- I have considered whether the carpet was replaced within a reasonable time.
- On 16 February the tenant wrote that the carpet on the ground floor was already rotten underneath. It can reasonably be assumed that the tenant became aware of this when lifting the carpet to dry it because there is no reference to rotten carpet in any correspondence before that.
- What is strange is that the tenant declined the landlord’s offer for a professional to deal with the wet carpet. The tenant should have accepted the landlord’s offer to have someone attend to the carpet. That contractor could have seen the condition of the carpet at that time and advised the landlord if the carpet needed to be replaced immediately or dried and replaced later. The tenant should not have dried the carpet if it needed replacing. The use of a fan heater on mouldy carpet is a health hazard. The tenant should have informed the landlord that the carpet was not safe to dry by using a fan heater. If that had happened the landlord would have had to inspect the carpet. If necessary, temporary carpet could have been installed until the carpet was replaced.
- The tenant’s decision to dry the carpet and not have the landlord’s contractor attend to it sent the wrong message to the landlord about the carpet. When the landlord was made aware of the mould on the back of the carpet the landlord immediately began the process of having the carpet replaced. The time taken for that replacement, from 9 March to 20 March, is reasonable.
- In summary, the tenant’s decisions regarding drying the carpet impacted the landlord’s knowledge about the actual condition of the carpet that was discovered after the 16 February flood. The tenant did not send the photos on 16 February, that she sent on 9 March. When the tenant did show the landlord the condition of the carpet the landlord acted promptly to maintain the premises.
- I do not find it proved that the landlord failed to maintain the premises regarding the carpet. The tenant’s claim that the landlord failed to maintain the premises regarding carpet is dismissed.
Did premises cause health issues for the tenant?
- The tenant claimed that the landlord’s breaches caused health issues for her.
- The evidence shows that while there were maintenance issues and a mouldy carpet discovered later, there has not been a breach by the landlord regarding those matters. It is difficult to prove the cause of health issues, especially where there are preexisting health issues. The evidence required would involve testing of the premises by experts regarding mould spore levels etc. That evidence has not been produced. It is also difficult to conclude that the premise has caused a health issue when it passes HHS. It is unfortunate that the two weather leaks that occurred were the most likely events affecting the tenant’s health and these were manged by the tenant despite the landlord’s suggestion that they be professionally dried.
Has the landlord maintained the premises regarding the shower?
- The shower at the premises most likely dates to the time the premises was built. It is a stainless-steel base with melamine walls on three surfaces and a shower curtain at the opening.
- The photos of the shower show it to be in poor condition. It is not aesthetically pleasing. The tenant said that the shower leaked because the stainless steel had corroded in one corner. There is mould growing in the silicon that is sealing vertical parts of the shower.
- On about 9 December the tenant informed the landlord that the shower was leaking. She followed up with photos in an email on 10 December. She requested the leak to be fixed as soon as possible because it “is compromising the floor of my bathroom”. The landlord responded immediately and on 12 December requested to see the shower. The tenant agreed. Following the landlord’s visit a tradesperson did work on the shower. On 17 December the landlord requested to see the work that had been carried out and inspected it on 18 December. On 23 December the landlord texted the tenant asking if she thought the shower leak had been fixed. The tenant replied that no one had been to silicone the seals on the shower. The landlord responded that was not good and asked to take someone through to repair it. The tenant decided that it could wait until after she returned to the property after the Christmas break. The tradesperson attended to fix the shower on 14 January 2026.
- It is important to take account of the RTA requirement regarding maintenance. It states that ‘a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises’. Because the premises is about 50 years old, there is likely to be more maintenance necessary. It is a lower quality property with a lower end market rent.
- The tenant believes that the shower should have been replaced because of its condition. However a landlord is not required to replace if it is possible to repair. The shower leak was reported on 9 December. If the tenant had not delayed the repair until January the repair could have been completed on about 23 December. That is 14 days to repair the shower leak. At the time of making the application the shower had not leaked. On 18 April, prior to the hearing, the tenant reported that the shower was leaking again.
- The evidence provided shows that the landlord immediately responded to the tenant’s report of a shower leak, visited the property, engaged a tradesperson, checked with the tenant if the fault had been fixed and was ready to have another tradesperson attend when the tenant said that some work on the leak had not been completed.
- I am satisfied that the landlord met the obligation to maintain the property regarding the shower. The shower did not leak again in January, February and March but the tenant reported a leak on 18 April after making this application.
- It was reasonable for the shower to be repaired after leaking in December. It took two attempts to make the repair. Not all items are easily repaired in older premises. However now that the shower has leaked again, the maintenance necessary may be the replacement of the shower. It is not reasonable to keep repairing a shower if it constantly develops new leaks. The tenant would be entitled to compensation at some future date if the landlord’s maintenance resulted in ongoing inconvenience. Did the landlord meet its obligation regarding Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)?
- The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Jaime Eileen Alofipo considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
- At the start of the tenancy the agreement included a landlord’s statement that the premises was HHS complaint. If the tenant claims that the premises was not HHS compliant, it is the tenant’s burden to prove that claim.
- The most significant information about HHS compliance pf the premises is the inspection carried out on 13 April 2026 by David Downer from Healthy Rentals NZ Limited. His report found the property to be complaint in all areas except draught stopping. He found “a minor gap on the front door and lounge window”. He suggested that the lounge window had been forced open, causing that gap.
- In the hearing the tenant said that gaps predated her tenancy because she noticed the gaps at the start of the tenancy. However in all the evidence provided there is no mention of these minor defects. The provisions of the RTA include a tenant obligation to report the defects and damage to the landlord. If the tenant had done, so the defects could have been immediately addressed.
- I am satisfied that the Report from Mr Downer proved that the property was substantially compliant from the start of Jamie’s tenancy and only failed on two minor matters that she failed to report to the landlord.
- The claim for compensation regarding HHS is not warranted. Filing Fee
- Because the tenant has not been successful with the claim, the filing fee is not ordered to be paid by the landlord. Suppression
- The tenant has applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- The tenant has not substantially succeeded with the claim and therefore name suppression is not granted. Conclusion:
- I can appreciate that Jamie has not been happy about the leaks and carpet problem. Most tenants would feel the same way about those events. However the evidence does not show that these events occurred because the landlord breached the tenancy agreement or the Residential Tenancies Act. It is clear that the landlord has taken maintenance requirements seriously once advised of any maintenance problem. Because the property is old it is possible that there will be more maintenance needed than in a newer property. No matter what age a property is it must meet Healthy Homes Standards. The evidence is that the premises Jamie is renting meets those standards.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s14, s45, s45(1), s95A(1)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: termination 14day
- Dispute theme: state of repair
- Dispute theme: cleaning
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5465984?
The tribunal order states: The claim is dismissed.
How much money was awarded in case 5465984?
Verified claim lines are listed on this page.
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465984?
The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Mould, Leaks.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465984?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13579698-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.