What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5100437 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5100437?

Compensation: Bottled Water: $40.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Enjoyment: $200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100437?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100437?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12562797-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5100437 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5100437?

Compensation: Bottled Water: $40.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Enjoyment: $200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100437?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100437?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12562797-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

31 Philomel Crescent, Bayswater, Auckland 0622 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5100437 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5100437 — net $240.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Bottled water	$40.00	Bottled water
Compensation: Loss of enjoyment	$200.00	Loss of enjoyment
Net award	$240.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$240.00

Both parties attended the hearing on 1 September 2025.

The tenancy was from 18 November 2024 until 13 December 2024.

The tenant had been living at a previous address as a long-term tenant of Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities (“KO”).

The tenant had to be moved due the maintenance issues at the old address.

When KO offered the tenant this premises, the tenant was concerned that this would be a continuation of the tenant’s experience of poor maintenance and ongoing interruption to the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. The tenant had written to KO from as early as 9 April 2024 that this premises had some serious faults. However, KO assured that the premises would be provided correctly.

However, the tenancy at this premises only lasted 25 days and the tenant was moved to another address.

When the tenant inspected the premises before the tenancy began and also after the tenant started living at the premises, the tenant raised multitude of issues. The issues included: a. overgrowth of moss on the roof, that caused the rear guttering to be blocked and water debris to overflow on the back porch and deck during the regular rains of late spring and early summer; b. freshwater pipes being corroded and water being non-potable; c. saturation under the premises with standing water pooling on the front lawn with no ground vapour barrier under the premises; d. poor conditions of the peeling wallpapers, cracks in walls and ceilings, holes in the wall, mould stains in the ceiling and loose and warped panels; e. paint containing lead for interior and exterior paint; and f. lack of privacy with the fence not providing any privacy.

The tenant claimed that the premises was not provided or maintained to a reasonable state and said that having to deal with the issues at the premises before and after moving had impacted on the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.

The tenant had come very well prepared with references to the emails between the parties, as well as notes released to the tenant under the Official Information Act 1982.

KO’s position to this application was that the premises was suitable to be rented out at the time and that some of the issues were those that could only be identified once tenanted.

To provide further context to the premises itself, the premises had been vacant for some time prior to this tenant moving in. In KO’s internal notes, there was an email dated 10 November 2023 from a Vacant Property Manager that stated: I recall we had a chat about placing someone into this home. I had a chat with the Supervisor and we believe this property will not be suitable as there will eventually have more work done. Rusty galvanised pipes, plumber said they are okay but will eventually need to be replaced. There may be couple more things.

KO relied on the same email from 10 November 2023 and highlighted that the plumber said that they were okay for the time being to justify the decision to let the premises to the tenant.

KO also relied on a Healthy Homes Standard (“HHS”) compliance statement from 18 September 2023 that had assessed the premises as being HHS compliant.

After the tenant moved in, the tenant issued a 14-day notice to fix on 21 November 2024.

On the very first week of at the new premises, the tenant had to have a glazier, electricians and plumbers attend. The plumbers told the tenant that the water was not safe to drink due to the corroded metal pipes. The toilet did not even flush. Between 18 to 25 November 2024, there had been 2 inspections and 4 contractor visits.

The tenant had to write to the CEO of KO to get the matter resolved and the tenant agreed to be moved to another premises.

This premises was considered to not be re-let by KO after this tenancy. Compensation and exemplary damages claims

Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.

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 RTA.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.

The claims by the tenant were well founded. It is correct that the premises required more work. There were clearly unacceptable issues with the pipes that resulted in the tenant having to purchase drinking water. There were some claims that did not go as far, such as the privacy issue with the fence. There is no obligation on the landlord to ensure there is backyard privacy. Some of the issues raised by the tenant were cosmetic only.

KO did have a track record of attending to the premises for the issues KO identified. I accept that there were issues that could only be confirmed once someone started living at the premises.

It is noted that some of the issues identified by the tenant had been flagged in KO’s internal system from before. KO was first made aware of the roof moss growth from back in September 2023, pipe issues from November 2023, drainage and ground vapour issues from April 2024, general maintenance issues possibly from November 2023, paint issues from November 2023 and fencing issues from April 2024.

KO did attend to the roof and the plumbing in November 2023, installed the ground vapour barrier prior to the tenancy, and the lead paint was stripped as well.

I do not find that there was an intentional failure on KO to provide this premises in a reasonable state. Unfortunately for the tenant, this was not a premises that was one hundred percent ready and did require some further maintenance that could only be prioritised once someone started to live in it.

I decline the tenant’s application for $724.00 being the total refund of the rent paid.

However, I do accept that the tenant had to purchase bottled water to drink. Under regulation 7 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947, it is the landlord’s responsibility to provide safe drinking water. I order KO to reimburse the tenant $40.00 for the bottled water purchased during the tenancy.

The tenant also claimed that KO has breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.

Under section 38(2) RTA, a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.

Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

Again, for exemplary damages to be awarded, the Tribunal must find that the party has committed an unlawful act intentionally.

I do not find that KO had intentionally tried to disrupt the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.

However, I accept that the tenant had forewarned KO of the inadequacies of this premises and his forewarnings turned out to be true so much to the extent that he had to be relocated again by KO.

During the 25 days’ stay, much of the tenant’s time was taken up to highlight the maintenance required and accommodating the contractors and inspections.

The tenant agreed to move in the end and this was only a couple of weeks before Christmas causing unnecessary stress and lack of certainty with the tenant’s plans for the end of the year.

I find that this was caused due to KO’s lack of oversight in getting this premises ready for the tenant in time.

I order KO to pay the tenant $200.00 in compensation for the tenant’s loss of enjoyment of the premises.

I dismiss the tenant’s application for $291.80 moving costs and $65.91 to paint the daughter’s room. The moving costs were covered by KO and the tenant chose to hire a truck to move items that were more practical for him to move himself. The painting done on the daughter’s room was just for cosmetic purposes only.

I do not order for reimbursement of the filing fee as I do not find that the tenant has wholly or substantially succeeded with the application.

However, I grant name suppression for the tenant at the request of both parties.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5100437 — net $240.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Bottled water	$40.00	Bottled water
Compensation: Loss of enjoyment	$200.00	Loss of enjoyment
Net award	$240.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$240.00