Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5138410 — State of repair at Unit/Flat 60, 119 Junction Road, Welbourn, RD 1, New

Decided 23 Sept 2025 · Published 23 Sept 2025 · Application 5138410

State of repair

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

New Plymouth

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

G Baker

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The tenant confirmed that her application was for an order requiring the landlord to: a. Improve or repair the stormwater drain so that it cleared away all surface water promptly. b. Trim or top the magnolia tree on the landlord’s neighbouring property. Standard of proof and exercise of jurisdiction
In considering the tenant’s claims, the “standard of proof” is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that her claim is “more likely than not.” Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims on the day of the hearing. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence for the hearing. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
While this order may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
The Tribunal must also have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
It is intended that this order be as concise as possible to convey the essential facts, the law and the Tribunal’s reason for its decisions. The tenant’s evidence
The tenant provided the following evidence to the Tribunal: a. Storm water from a variety of sources pools around a drain in the driveway. This can take a significant amount of time to drain away and this means that the tenant must cross a pool of water to access the steps to her property. She provided photographic evidence of the pooling. b. The last time it rained heavily, it took all day for the water to drain away. c. She believes the drain is blocked or inadequate for the amount of water it is receiving. She has lived in the property for twelve years and the issue has got progressively worse, especially since the driveway was sealed. d. She believes that if the drain worked properly, water would not pool and the driveway area would not flood. e. She believes that the pooling is a hazard to young children who could drown in it. f. She explained that the magnolia outside her kitchen window had grown to such an extent and height that it was blocking daylight from her kitchen. She wanted to see it trimmed or have 2 metres taken off its height. She provided photographs of the magnolia tree outside her kitchen window in the neighbouring property. The landlord’s response
The landlord responded as follows: a. The water can pool in the driveway as claimed by the tenant. The event shown in the tenant’s photograph was an exceptional weather event that caused extensive flooding throughout the area. b. The landlord’s on-site manager has monitored this issue since it was raised by the tenant. He confirms that it can take some time for the area to be free of water after heavy rain. c. The landlord obtained a report from a qualified plumber to see whether it was necessary to upgrade the soak hole. The plumber inspected the site on 26 August 2025 and reported: “The soakhole is a conventional hole 750mm diameter and measured over 7m in depth. The water level in the soakhole was around 1.3m from the bottom and it had last rained on Sunday the 24th of August 2025. From what I could identify, at this time, there was no other roofing, paved or concrete areas flowing into this soakhole. In my professional opinion the soakhole is working as it was intended and is adequate for the area it serves. It is free from blockage or fault as the water level would be much higher if it was failing or had failed. Even if due to heavy rain fall the soakhole is to overflow, the secondary flow path of this water is contained within the property and distributes towards a grassed area. This is very unlikely to cause any property damage, or environmental erosion.” d. The landlord also provided a brief handwritten note from a tenant of the unit adjoining the applicant’s unit. He records that he lived at the property since 2019 and that “there hasn’t been any trouble with the water drain I can walk in and out fine in any weather when it rains. It’s like anywhere else the water doesn’t stay long it drains normally like it should”. e. The landlord believes that the soak hole is fit for purpose and that its professional contractor has confirmed that it is operating as it should and that it is not required to upgrade the soak pit. f. The pooling is of such a nature and extent that it does not constitute a threat to children’s safety. g. The magnolia tree is not on the rented property. It is on an adjacent property owned by the landlord and occupied as the landlord’s home. It was planted to protect the landlord’s privacy. It will be maintained by the landlord at its present height. Discussion and decision
On the evidence before the Tribunal, the tenant has not shown that it has failed in any of its obligations under the RTA. The tenant has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises by not repairing the soak hole. The evidence of a qualified plumber has confirmed that the drain is working as intended and is adequate for the area it serves.
While the tenant experiences inconvenience caused by surface pooling after heavy rain, the tenant has not shown that the landlord is in breach of any requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
The tenant’s claim in relation to the drainage issue is dismissed.
While the owner happens to be the landlord, the land on which the tree is situated is not part of the tenanted premises. The Tribunal does not therefore have jurisdiction to make any orders in relation to the tree. The tenant’s claim must therefore be dismissed.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

State of repair New Plymouth

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s85(2)

Key findings

Dispute theme: state of repair

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5138410 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5138410?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5138410?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5138410?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12451351-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

For landlords & property managers

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.

Order a Tenantcheck →

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.

The tenant confirmed that her application was for an order requiring the landlord to: a. Improve or repair the stormwater drain so that it cleared away all surface water promptly. b. Trim or top the magnolia tree on the landlord’s neighbouring property. Standard of proof and exercise of jurisdiction

In considering the tenant’s claims, the “standard of proof” is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that her claim is “more likely than not.” Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.

It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims on the day of the hearing. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence for the hearing. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.

While this order may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.

The Tribunal must also have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

It is intended that this order be as concise as possible to convey the essential facts, the law and the Tribunal’s reason for its decisions. The tenant’s evidence

The tenant provided the following evidence to the Tribunal: a. Storm water from a variety of sources pools around a drain in the driveway. This can take a significant amount of time to drain away and this means that the tenant must cross a pool of water to access the steps to her property. She provided photographic evidence of the pooling. b. The last time it rained heavily, it took all day for the water to drain away. c. She believes the drain is blocked or inadequate for the amount of water it is receiving. She has lived in the property for twelve years and the issue has got progressively worse, especially since the driveway was sealed. d. She believes that if the drain worked properly, water would not pool and the driveway area would not flood. e. She believes that the pooling is a hazard to young children who could drown in it. f. She explained that the magnolia outside her kitchen window had grown to such an extent and height that it was blocking daylight from her kitchen. She wanted to see it trimmed or have 2 metres taken off its height. She provided photographs of the magnolia tree outside her kitchen window in the neighbouring property. The landlord’s response

The landlord responded as follows: a. The water can pool in the driveway as claimed by the tenant. The event shown in the tenant’s photograph was an exceptional weather event that caused extensive flooding throughout the area. b. The landlord’s on-site manager has monitored this issue since it was raised by the tenant. He confirms that it can take some time for the area to be free of water after heavy rain. c. The landlord obtained a report from a qualified plumber to see whether it was necessary to upgrade the soak hole. The plumber inspected the site on 26 August 2025 and reported: “The soakhole is a conventional hole 750mm diameter and measured over 7m in depth. The water level in the soakhole was around 1.3m from the bottom and it had last rained on Sunday the 24th of August 2025. From what I could identify, at this time, there was no other roofing, paved or concrete areas flowing into this soakhole. In my professional opinion the soakhole is working as it was intended and is adequate for the area it serves. It is free from blockage or fault as the water level would be much higher if it was failing or had failed. Even if due to heavy rain fall the soakhole is to overflow, the secondary flow path of this water is contained within the property and distributes towards a grassed area. This is very unlikely to cause any property damage, or environmental erosion.” d. The landlord also provided a brief handwritten note from a tenant of the unit adjoining the applicant’s unit. He records that he lived at the property since 2019 and that “there hasn’t been any trouble with the water drain I can walk in and out fine in any weather when it rains. It’s like anywhere else the water doesn’t stay long it drains normally like it should”. e. The landlord believes that the soak hole is fit for purpose and that its professional contractor has confirmed that it is operating as it should and that it is not required to upgrade the soak pit. f. The pooling is of such a nature and extent that it does not constitute a threat to children’s safety. g. The magnolia tree is not on the rented property. It is on an adjacent property owned by the landlord and occupied as the landlord’s home. It was planted to protect the landlord’s privacy. It will be maintained by the landlord at its present height. Discussion and decision

On the evidence before the Tribunal, the tenant has not shown that it has failed in any of its obligations under the RTA. The tenant has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises by not repairing the soak hole. The evidence of a qualified plumber has confirmed that the drain is working as intended and is adequate for the area it serves.

While the tenant experiences inconvenience caused by surface pooling after heavy rain, the tenant has not shown that the landlord is in breach of any requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.

The tenant’s claim in relation to the drainage issue is dismissed.

While the owner happens to be the landlord, the land on which the tree is situated is not part of the tenanted premises. The Tribunal does not therefore have jurisdiction to make any orders in relation to the tree. The tenant’s claim must therefore be dismissed.