What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5105768 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 5105768?

Compensation: Water Contamination: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5105768?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5105768?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11404099-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5105768 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 5105768?

Compensation: Water Contamination: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5105768?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5105768?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11404099-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5105768 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5105768 — net $777.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Water contamination	$750.00	Water contamination
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$777.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$777.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5105768 — net $777.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Water contamination	$750.00	Water contamination
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$777.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$777.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Susan Lee Purton & Donna Marie Dugmore must pay [The tenant/s] $777.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 16 September 2022. It is a current tenancy.
The tenants’ application raises issues relating to the household water, and leaks in the “conservatory”.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 24 January 2025. Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Withers and Ms Watt represented the landlord. Household water Background
The property is on tank water. [Tenant 1] said that she and her family did not experience any problems with the water quality until 22 November 2024.
In the morning of 22 November (a Friday), [Tenant 1] noticed that the water was discoloured and contained sediment. She notified Harcourts and sent a photograph.
Harcourts contacted a local plumber, [redacted]. [The Plumber] attended that morning.
At that time the only filtration on the system was a 130-micron disc filter. [The Plumber] found that the filter was blocked and dirty. He cleaned the filter and reinstated it. [The Plumber] reported back to Harcourts, who discussed the issue with the owners. The owners and property manager decided to take further action by cleaning the gutters, shock-treating the water in the tank, and adding a UV filter.
This decision was not communicated to [Tenant 1] over the weekend.
The following Monday, 25 November, [Tenant 1] sent Harcourts a 14-day breach notice. The notice required the landlord to clean the gutters, “fully service the now contaminated tanks”, install filters on the water supply, and “supply us immediately with potable water”. The notice also raised issues relating to the leaking conservatory, mouldy curtains, and lawnmowing.
Mr Withers replied to the notice on 26 November, setting out the landlords’ plan with regards to the water system.
Around this time, two of [Tenant 1]’s young children became ill with gastro- intestinal symptoms. The youngest child, aged 3, required a hospital visit on 5 December. [Tenant 1] began purchasing water from the supermarket and her children stayed with her mother.
On 2 December the UV filter was installed, and the tank water was shock- dosed. Work began on that day to clean the gutters. The contractor returned on 5 December to complete the gutter cleaning. The gutter cleaning was difficult because there were ‘gutter guards’ over the gutters that restricted access for cleaning.
[Tenant 1] took a sample of the water and had it tested via the [Event location suppressed] District Council’s testing service. The Laboratory Analysis Report, dated 6 December 2024, showed that the sample was positive for bacterial contamination including e-coli.
On 10 December, [The Plumber] returned to the property to take another sample of the water. [The Plumber] noted that there was some visible sediment in the water and he let Harcourts know about this. [Tenant 1] took another sample of the water at the same time. Both samples were taken to the [Event location suppressed] District Council’s laboratory for testing.
Harcourts instructed [Cleaning Service] to clean the tank, to deal with the sediment / discolouration problem. That work was carried out on 17 December.
On 11 December, Harcourts received the report from their water sample, which was negative for e-coli.
On 12 December, [Tenant 1] received the report from her water sample. Although the sample was taken at the same time from the same location as Harcourts’, the result was significantly different. The sample was positive for bacterial contamination including e-coli.
The landlord reimbursed the tenants for bottled water that they had purchased. Law
Landlords must: a. Provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water (if the property is not on a reticulated supply) 1 ; and b. Comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. 2
It is a legal requirement that residential buildings must have a potable water supply 3 .
The law as it currently stands does not prescribe how that potable water supply is to be achieved. There is no positive duty on a landlord to have filtration on the water supply. A tank system without a filter will deliver potable water, as long as no contaminant enters the system. However, such a system is at constant risk of contamination.
The Building Code defines potable water as water that is safe to drink and that complies with the drinking water standards. The drinking water standards are set out in the Water Services (Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand) Regulations 2022. The standards state that the maximum acceptable value for e-coli is less than one coliform in 100ml of sample. 1 Section 45(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 45(1)(c) RTA 3 Regulation 7(2) Housing Improvement Regulations 1947, Building Regulations 1992 Schedule 1 (the Building Code), clause G12 Findings
[Tenant 1] has established that the household water for this property was not potable for a period of time.
[Tenant 1] provided two test results showing the presence of at least one coliform of e-coli in the sample. The 5 December sample showed one coliform. The 10 December sample showed three coliforms.
There are some puzzling aspects to the positive test results. [Tenant 1]’s first sample was taken three days after the landlord’s contractor shock-dosed the water in the tank and installed a UV-filter. Those actions should have eliminated any bacterial contamination in the water.
Even more puzzling is the result of [Tenant 1]’s sample from 10 December. That sample showed an even higher level of contamination. The landlord’s sample, taken from the same place at the same time, showed no detectable e-coli.
The fact that the water was contaminated is supported by the discolouration / sediment that [Tenant 1] noticed on 22 November, together with her children’s health problems around that same time. Although I note Mr Withers’ comment that it is not possible to prove conclusively that the children’s sickness was due to contaminated drinking water, “conclusive proof” is not the standard of proof that applies in the civil courts (including this Tribunal), and the nature of their symptoms along with the timing of their illness is sufficient to satisfy me that it is more likely than not that contaminated water was the cause.
I am also satisfied that the water contamination was not an unforeseeable event outside of the landlord’s control. The filtration system that the landlord had in place was not adequate to deal with bacterial contamination. The 130-micron disc filter could only remove large particles. Further, filters of this type must be regularly cleaned to work effectively. There is no record that this filter was cleaned since the start of this tenancy in September 2022. The landlord also failed to clean the gutters regularly.
Once the issue came up, the landlord acted promptly and proactively. The landlord didn’t just tidy up the existing system by cleaning the filter and clearing the gutters. They improved the system by adding a UV filter. They took all reasonable steps to eliminate any contamination in the tank at that time. They also undertook cleaning to remove sediment / discolouration.
A breach of the duty to provide potable water is an unlawful act, and exemplary damages could apply. 4 Exemplary damages are punitive. They are intended to punish and deter certain breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act.
My finding is that it is not appropriate to award exemplary damages in this instance having regard to the following factors: 4 Section 45(1A) RTA. The maximum exemplary damages for this breach is $7,200. a. As noted above, the fact that the household water system had an inherent risk of contamination is not a breach of the landlord’s legal duty per se. b. I accept that the landlord simply assumed that the disc filter was adequate. c. When the problem manifested, the landlord acted very promptly and proactively to address the immediate problem and to install a long-term solution.
My finding is that it is appropriate to award some compensation to the tenants. The tenants endured a very unpleasant experience due to a failing of the property. Safe drinking water is fundamental.
It is not possible to quantify the distress suffered by [The tenant/s] when their children were sick, and I am not attempting to do so in assessing an appropriate amount of compensation.
I will award $750.00. Conservatory
The property has an enclosed / covered patio area that I will call “the conservatory” for the purposes of this decision. I accept Mr Withers’ comment that it is not a conservatory in the true sense, it is somewhat basic and poorly built and not intended to be a weathertight and habitable part of the dwelling.
[Tenant 1] said that after she and [Tenant 2] signed the tenancy agreement, the property manager at that time (Ms Piper) gave her the keys, then mentioned to her that there was a leak in the conservatory and she pointed out where the leak occurs.
[Tenant 1] that there is a relatively minor leak in the location that Ms Piper pointed out, but that leak pales in comparison to a ‘waterfall’ leak that occurs in another part of the conservatory when there is heavy rain from a particular direction.
[Tenant 1] provided video evidence of that significant leak.
When [Tenant 1] raised concerns about the leak, Harcourts replied that they had told her about the leak. When she pushed the point, Harcourts suggested that they would remove the conservatory.
Although this is not a habitable area and (as Mr Withers described it) not part of the “building envelope”, it is part of the premises that was rented to the tenant. Landlords have a duty to maintain all the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises.
A reasonable tenant would not expect a basic enclosed patio area to be watertight, and [The tenant/s] did not have that expectation. The minor leak that Ms Piper pointed out is within the parameters of reasonable.
The more substantial leak is problematic, because it impacts on the tenants’ use of this area.
In a happy accident, [Tenant 1] said that the leak has improved substantially since the landlord cleaned out the gutters. She said that she would prefer to keep the conservatory even with its limitations, because it is a useful play area for her children.
I want to support [Tenant 1] view that Harcourts’ “we told you it leaked” was not an adequate response, and neither was their suggestion to remove the conservatory. The substantial leak was a maintenance issue, and the appropriate response would have been to investigate it and remedy it (or at least mitigate it) if possible.
However, I also accept that there was an aspect of miscommunication (Mr Withers did not know what leaks Ms Piper pointed out) and that the problem has now reduced significantly.
On that basis I will not make an award of damages in respect of this issue. Noted - curtains
[Tenant 1] said that the owners told her that they would clean the curtains, but this wasn’t done. There is some mould on the backs of the curtains. Harcourts later questioned whether this was due to the tenant failing to ventilate the premises adequately.
The parties discussed this at the hearing and agreed that [Tenant 1] could clean the curtains herself. Mr Withers said that [Tenant 1] would not be held responsible if the curtains sustained damage during the washing process. [Tenant 1] agreed it would be more convenient if she could clean the curtains herself. Filing fee, name suppression
The tenants are entitled to recover the filing fee for this application. 5
The tenants sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted on the grounds that the tenants have been substantially successful in the proceedings. 6

Tenancy Tribunal case 5105768 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5105768 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions