What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5139749 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 5139749?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5139749?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5139749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12109154-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5139749 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 5139749?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5139749?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5139749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12109154-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

13 Eileen Newey Place, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5139749 — Leaks

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Wolfbrook Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $671.42 immediately, being compensation for loss of amenity and inconvenience following hot water cylinder overflow.
Wolfbrook Property Management Limited and Local Realty Rentals Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,500.00 immediately, being compensation for failure to provide sufficient smoke alarms.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The first landlord, Local Realty Rentals Limited (“Local Realty”), was represented by Derryn Mayne. The second landlord, Wolfbrook Property Management Limited (“Woolfbrook”) was represented by Che Desmond.
This tenancy of a two-level unit in Henderson, Auckland, began on 22 May 2024. The tenancy began as a periodic tenancy and the rent was $700 per week. In July 2024 the parties agreed to amend the agreement reducing the rent to $650 per week but on the basis that the tenancy would be a fixed term tenancy for a period of one year.
Local Realty sold their property management portfolio to Woolfbook Property Management on 1 October 2024 and Woolfbrook became the landlord from that date onwards.
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord/s have breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by: a. failing in their obligations following flooding caused by the overflow of the hot water cylinder; and b. failing to provide sufficient smoke alarms.
Section 45 RTA states that the landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair. Flooding – Wolfbrook
The tenants said they went away over Christmas 2024 and arrived home on 28 December 2024 to find a large bulge in the ceiling. They contacted the landlord who sent out a plumber who found the hot water cylinder located on the upstairs level discharging into the ceiling above the lounge.
The tenants said that the plumber disabled the hot water cylinder and ruptured the ceiling in the bulging area to allow the water to flow out.
The tenants said that their lounge suite and cabinet got wet, water continued to drip from the ceiling, and that they had to empty the bucket underneath three times a day and overnight.
The tenants provided photos of the bulging area in the ceiling, the water over the floor and on their possessions, of them emptying buckets and water dripping from a downlight.
They said that as the hot water cylinder had failed there was no hot water. They had to boil water and take it upstairs in a bucket to use in the shower. They were also unable to use the lights downstairs at night as they were told it would be dangerous to do so with the water present.
The tenants said that Jae attended and installed two large air dryers but they were told that they must keep all the windows and doors closed during the drying process. This made the property stuffy and humid.
The tenants said that they did not feel that the property was habitable and wanted to leave. They said that they did not feel safe there and wanted to apply for emergency accommodation. However the property manager that they were dealing with, Sonia Retter, did not come to personally inspect the property and insisted that the tenancy would continue.
[Tenant 1] said that she was still recovering from surgery, had very limited use of her shoulder and that the situation was unpleasant and stressful. She said that she suffers from both physical and mental health challenges which were exacerbated during this time. She provided a letter from her Social Worker confirming the impact on her. She was also concerned for her daughter, the other tenant, who suffers from epilepsy. She said that they moved out for two nights, 29 and 30 December 2025, due to the situation, and did not want to move back in but felt they had no other option.
The tenants sought compensation for rent paid during the leak, for damage to their possessions, for alternative accommodation and for inconvenience and stress.
Mr Desmond acknowledged the difficulties experienced by the tenant but said that that the hot water cylinder malfunction was totally unforeseeable, and although it happened over the holiday period Woolfbrook acted as quickly as possible to resolve matters.
He referred the Tribunal to the written correspondence between the parties, noting that Ms Retter had communicated with the tenant at 2am over the Christmas period to resolve matters, and said that that Woolfbrook had sent out a plumber urgently on 29 December 2025 and arranged for dryers to be installed. The hot water cylinder had to be replaced and that was done on 10 January 2025.
Ms Retter did not attend the hearing. Mr Desmond was unable to confirm whether she had in fact attended at the property to inspect it.
Mr Desmond said that the tenant was not in fact charged rent from 1 January 2025 to the date they moved out on 7 January 2025 and so had received a rent reduction of one week. At the hearing Mr Desmond rightly acknowledged that the tenant should not have been paying rent from 28 December to 31 December 2025, an additional 4 days. At this stage the property had two large holes in the ceiling, water was continuing to drip down, and there was no hot water.
The tenant is entitled to compensation for these additional days of rent in the amount of $371.42.
I consider that the Woolfbrook has acted promptly and appropriately in attending to the immediate leak caused by the hot water cylinder. They communicated with the tenant on an urgent basis, had a plumber attend urgently, started the drying process and arranged for a new hot water cylinder to be installed.
There is no basis for the landlord to compensate the tenant for damage to their possessions. I accept that the tenant’s possessions became wet but I was not provided with any detail about whether there was any long term damage, and in any event the fact that the tenant’s possessions became wet was not due to any breach by the landlord.
There is no basis for the landlord to compensate the tenant for alternate accommodation. The landlord has already accepted that rent should not be payable for the period of the leak. There is no obligation on landlords to also fund alternate accommodation.
However I do not consider that Woolfbrook has entirely met their obligations in regard to the wider maintenance issues involved following the leak. It does not appear that anybody attended to inspect the area to establish whether the property was habitable 1 .
The result was that these tenants ended up emptying buckets over the first few days as the water drained out, had to boil water for bathing and did not have lighting downstairs. This meant extra work for the tenants and considerable stress given their particular situation. I consider that additional compensation of $300 is appropriate given the circumstances. Smoke alarms – Local Realty and Woolfbrook
Section 45(1)(ba) provides that a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A RTA.
The relevant regulations state that smoke alarms must be installed: a. Within 3 metres of each bedroom door, or in every room where a person sleeps b. In each level or storey of a multi-storey or multi-level home c. In all rental homes, boarding houses, rental caravans, and self-contained sleep-outs.
In addition, smoke alarms must be photoelectric, have a battery life of at least 8 years (or be a hard-wired system), and be installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
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. 1 Whether or not a property is “uninhabitable” depends not only on the condition of the property but the needs and vulnerability of the tenants (See for example First Avenue Property Ltd v Malik DC Christchurch, CIV-2011-009-001539 23 November 2011)
The tenants said that not long after the tenancy began a contractor attended to conduct a Healthy Homes inspection. They said that shortly after the inspection they were contacted by her property manager, Janine Hair (from Local Realty), who told them that the owner needed to install a smoke alarm downstairs as there was only a smoke alarm upstairs.
The tenants said that a smoke alarm was never installed and had still not been by the time the hot water cylinder had caused the flooding. They said that they became very concerned about the risk of fire as there was water throughout the lights in the downstairs ceiling and they had been told not to turn them on. They said that there was still a missing smoke alarm when they moved out.
Ms Mayne from Local Realty explained that the owner of the property had insisted that they would install the smoke alarm themselves but never did so. She provided a comprehensive timeline of communication showing that Local Realty communicated extensively with the owner, followed up and even took steps to arrange for a handyman to install the smoke alarm that was ultimately cancelled by the owner who wanted to install the alarm themselves.
The last communication between Local Realty and the owner regarding the smoke alarms was on 5 August 2024. At that point there was a minor leak in the hot water cylinder and communications from that point on were focussed on repairing the minor leak.
Woolfbrook said that they were unaware there was a missing smoke alarm until they received correspondence from the tenant on 1 January 2025. They arranged for a smoke alarm to be installed on 10 January 2025.
Local Realty produced an email from the owner dated 26 June 2025 taking full responsibility for the smoke alarm not being installed.
The reality is that despite the best efforts of Local Realty (and latterly Wollfbrook) the tenant did not have a smoke alarm in the lower level of the home for the entire duration of the tenancy. The failure to have compliant smoke alarms is an unlawful act.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Having heard from both Local Realty and Woolfbrook I do not consider that it would be just to make an award of exemplary damages in this instance. I am not satisfied that the breach was intentional 2 . Local Realty had extensive 2 Intention must be proved for exemplary damages to be awarded – see section 109(3) RTA and Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust CIV-2018-009-002094 [2020] NZDC 17667 communications with the owner and it appears that they thought that the owner had installed the alarm. There is nothing before me to indicate that Woolfbrook were aware of an issue until they received correspondence from the tenant on 1 January 2025.
The reality however is that there has been a breach by the landlords, whether intentional or not. It is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure compliance. I consider that the tenants are entitled to some compensatory damages for the breach. The tenants were paying rent for a property that should have been compliant but was not. Smoke alarms might seem like a minor issue (and in fact they are relatively cheap and easy to install) but they are mandatory in rental properties for safety reasons. In this case there was no smoke alarm on the ground floor where the lounge and kitchen were located. The tenants were aware there was no smoke alarm from 18 June 2025 and felt stress knowing that there was no alarm downstairs. After the flooding occurred from the hot water cylinder they became particularly concerned about a fire downstairs.
Given the seriousness of the issue, the lengthy duration and the impact on the tenants, I consider that compensation in the amount of $1,500 is appropriate in all the circumstances.
The liability of Local Realty and Woolfbrook is joint and several 3 . It is not for this Tribunal to apportion percentages to each party. In any event, I apprehend that each will have an agreement with the owner of the property and may be entitled to be indemnified for any award made. Who ultimately bears the burden of the award is an issue for resolution between the landlords and the owner. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants sought an order for name suppression pursuant to section 95A RTA and are entitled to an order as the substantially successful party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5139749 — Leaks at 13 Eileen Newey Place, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5139749 — Leaks at 13 Eileen Newey Place, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions