What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5154071 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 5154071?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5154071?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5154071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11782455-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5154071 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 5154071?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5154071?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5154071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11782455-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5154071 — 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.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for work orders.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 11 July 2022. The tenancy remains current.
The property is a stand-alone home which was built in 2022. The tenant is the first occupant.
The tenant lives in the property with his three primary-school aged children. Burden and standard of proof
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. The tenant’s claims
The tenant seeks work orders that the landlord: a. Provide a permanent fix to the front door draught; and b. Remove the kitchen wet unit and open the wall behind to investigate the cause of the leak.
The tenant also seeks exemplary damages stemming from the same issues, specifically: a. Breach of the Healthy Homes Standards in relation to draughts in respect of the front door; and b. Breach of the landlord’s obligations to maintain the premises in relation to the kitchen leak.
If successful, the tenant seeks reimbursement of the application fee. The tenant also seeks name suppression.
The landlord disputes all claims made by the tenant. Exemplary damages
In the tenant’s claim, the Tribunal must consider claims for exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary damages and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA. Front door – exemplary damages for breach of HHS
[The tenant/s] 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). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
Tenancy Services provides guidance to the public as to what constitutes an unreasonable gap: 1 As a rule of thumb, gaps or holes with a width greater than 3mm in or around the walls, ceilings, windows, doors and floors that let air into or out of the home will usually require blocking to prevent unreasonable draughts. This means that if the edge of a New Zealand $2 dollar coin can fit in the gap, then the gap needs to be sealed. Some gaps or holes are intentional and should not be blocked. These include: › trickle vents – some modern windows have small vents to let fresh air trickle in › key holes › built-in openings for the drainage of condensation from window and door joinery › wall vents which let small amounts of fresh air into rooms › ventilation devices including extractor fans › gaps or holes needed for the safe operation of devices such as chimneys or flues for heating devices or certain recessed downlights Opening windows and doors with intentional gaps that are part of the construction do not require sealing. This includes gaps that are needed for windows or doors to open properly at different times of the year, for example, sliding parts of sash windows. To operate all year round there may be gaps that allow for the window or door or surrounding building features to change size because of humidity or temperature changes. However, unreasonable gaps that exceed what is needed for the window or door to work still need to be sealed. Similarly, gaps that are not part of the intentional construction need to be sealed. There are some situations where a gap may be smaller than 3 mm but can still create an unreasonable draught. This can depend on a range of factors that may be intermittent, such as wind direction, wind speed and external temperature. This can 1 Healthy homes standards: Draught stopping, Tenancy Services, TEN 8113 NOV22. also occur where lots of smaller gaps or holes when combined enable cross draughts that make a home harder to heat. These situations should be assessed on a case by case basis considering the individual features of the home.
The tenant’s evidence was that a $2 coin could fit in the gap he identified at the bottom right of the front door, however he accepted it was not a lineal gap that went straight-through from the outside to the inside. Rather, it was a gap that went around the bottom of the aluminium door. The tenant said the $2 coin could fit in the bottom of the track and the door close over it.
The landlord says the aluminium door is designed to have a gap which allows the door to expand in the summer heat. The landlord says on each occasion when the tenant has raised the issue of a draught, they have taken to steps to try to remedy it. The landlord accepts the tenant has provided evidence to show air comes through the gap identified but say that is the design of the door and the gap is necessary for it to function year around. Alternatively, the landlord says the gap is not unreasonable.
The landlord referred me to a Healthy Homes Standards assessment completed on 11 April 2025 and a Healthy Homes Statement dated 28 April 2025, both of which stated the premises does not currently have any unreasonable gaps. The assessment was completed by an independent contractor, with reference to the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
I find Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities did not commit an unlawful act. I am satisfied that when the tenant raised concerns about a draught through the door, they took action by having a tradesperson attend to tighten the hinges and apply draught stopping tape. I find the gap identified by the tenant is necessary in order for the door to operate year-round, specifically, to allow it to change size due to humidity or temperature changes.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages in relation to the front door draught. Front door – work order
The tenant claims that, following the tenant issuing a 14-day notice to remedy on 28 November 2024, the landlord did not remedy the draught that enters the home via the front door. The tenant wants the problem fixed.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

The tenant says the front door has had issues with draughts since August 2022. He says he raised the issue on several occasions, and on each occasion, the landlord took steps to remedy the issue. However, the tenant says that since a tradesperson attended the premises on 13 August 2024 and noted the only permanent remedy would be a full replacement of the door, the landlord has refused to do so.
I am satisfied the landlord has responded to the tenant’ requests for maintenance on the front door. In particular, I accept that following the tenant issuing a 14-day notice to remedy on 28 November 2024, the landlord arranged for at tradesperson to attend the premises on 4 or 5 December 2024. As recorded by the landlord in an email to the tenant on 13 December 2024, no repairs were undertaken at that time as the tradesperson noted that it was the design of the door to have a gap to allow for expansion in the summer heat.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for a work order in relation to the front door. Kitchen leak – exemplary damages for breach of duty to maintain
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA is respect of failing to investigate a suspected water leak in the wall behind the kitchen bench.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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.
The tenant says that he has noticed signs of a leak in the home but Kainga Ora has failed to investigate and identify the source of the leak since August 2024. The tenant says he and his family have suffered stress as they are concerned structural damage is being caused to their home, putting them in danger.
The tenant says on 13 August 2024 a plumber attended the premises to investigate work done in relation to flooding at the property in May 2024. The tenant says the tradesperson reported, as recorded in the Kainga Ora work notes that, “a small water mark at the base of the exterior cladding is most likely caused by a leak coming from inside kitchen walls. Supervisor advised that it’s a very small leak and hard to pinpoint. He looked inside the property and was not signs of the water leaking or damage to the property.” The note went on to say, “Advised to request a new job to remove kitchen wet unit and open the wall behind to investigate the cause of leak.”
The tenant says the landlord refused to do the work suggested by the tradesperson, that is to remove the kitchen bench unit to investigate the wall behind, and as a result he and his family live with the impact of the leak.
The tenant says the leak has caused a crack to appear between the kitchen bench and the wall, has caused water damage beneath the kitchen bench, caused nails to pop out of the wall in other rooms of the house and caused the dining room floor to become uneven.
The tenant issued a 14-day notice to remedy on 28 November 2024 and says the landlord did not remedy the issue.
The landlord says there is insufficient evidence to suspect there is in fact a leak in the wall and therefore to justify the kitchen bench being removed and the wall opened for investigation.
The landlord says the tradesperson who attended on 13 August 2024 noted that there were no visible signs of water leaking or damage inside the property. In response to the tenant’s 14-day notice issued in November 2024, the landlord says a tradesperson attended on 4 December and did not find any signs of leaking in the kitchen or outside. The landlord produced a copy of the tradesperson’s notes and photos taken by the tradesperson.
On 4 December 2024, the tradesperson remedied the crack between the kitchen bench and wall.
I find the landlord did not commit an unlawful act.
The tenant did not produce evidence to establish it is more likely than not that there is a leak behind the kitchen unit. I note that on two occasions, on 13 August 2024 and 4 December 2024, tradespeople investigated and could not identify any sign of a water leak.
The tenant points to water damage under the kitchen bench. That evidence was presented for the first time at the hearing, and I note the landlord stated they would refer the evidence to those managing the premises. However, I note that given the area of alleged water damage is below the gap between the bench and wall it is possible the alleged damage below has been caused by water travelling down through that gap. On the tenant’s evidence, the gap between the bench and wall has been present since November 2024, and was only remedied in April 2025, therefore it is possible water has travelled down that gap in the course of the ordinary use of the kitchen bench during those months.
As to the nails popping out of the wall in other areas of the home, including upstairs, the tenant has not demonstrated their movement is more likely than not caused by a water leak in the wall behind the kitchen bench, which is downstairs.
Equally, the tenant has not proved the warping of the dining room floor is more likely than not caused by the same alleged leak.
There is not sufficient evidence to suspect there is a water leak behind the kitchen bench and that the landlord has breached their duty to maintain the premises.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages in relation to the suspected water leak. Kitchen leak – work order
The tenant claims that, following the tenant issuing a 14-day notice to remedy on 28 November 2024, the landlord did not investigate the cause of the suspected leak, specifically, did not remove the kitchen bench and open the wall to investigate. The tenant wants the problem fixed, or at least, investigated.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

The tenant says the landlord has failed to take the steps recommended by a tradesperson on 13 August 2024, that is, to remove the kitchen bench and open the wall behind to investigate a suspected water leak.
The tenant included his request that the landlord do so in his 14-day notice issued 28 November 2024.
I am satisfied the landlord has responded to the tenant’ requests in relation to the suspected water leak. In particular, I accept that following the tenant issuing a 14-day notice to remedy on 28 November 2024, the landlord arranged for at tradesperson to attend the premises on 4 December 2024. As recorded by the landlord in an email to the tenant on 13 December 2024, the plumber who attended could not find any visible water leak. On that basis, the landlord says there is no reason to undertake the investigation requested by the tenant.
I dismiss the tenant’s claim for a work order in relation to the suspected leak behind the kitchen bench. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?
The tenant has not succeeded with their claim therefore the landlord is not required to reimburse the tenant’s filing fee. Should the tenant’s identifying details be suppressed?
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/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 Tribunal may also, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
See s 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant applied for suppression of their name and the tenancy address. The tenant’s application was not successful, however, I consider, having regards to the interests of the tenant, that suppression is appropriate. I note that the landlord did not object to the tenant’s request for suppression.
Accordingly, I order suppression of the tenant’s name and the tenancy address.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5154071 — Leaks

Tenancy Tribunal case 5154071 — Leaks

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions