What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5161031 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5161031?

Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5161031?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5161031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11904578-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5161031 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5161031?

Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5161031?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5161031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11904578-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5161031 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5161031 — net $280.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 December 2024	$1,380.00		Rent arrears to 13 December 2024
Compensation water collection and storage		$1,000.00	Compensation water collection and storage
Compensation leak in lounge ceiling		$50.00	Compensation leak in lounge ceiling
Compensation pantry light		$50.00	Compensation pantry light
Total award	$1,380.00	$1,100.00
Net award	$280.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$280.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5161031 — net $280.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 December 2024	$1,380.00		Rent arrears to 13 December 2024
Compensation water collection and storage		$1,000.00	Compensation water collection and storage
Compensation leak in lounge ceiling		$50.00	Compensation leak in lounge ceiling
Compensation pantry light		$50.00	Compensation pantry light
Total award	$1,380.00	$1,100.00
Net award	$280.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$280.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $280.00 as set out in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $580.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

The tenant appeared. [ Suppressed], property managers, appeared for the landlord.
The tenancy started on 1 March 2023 and was periodic. The tenancy ended on 13 December 2024.
On 28 February 2025, the tenant filed a claim with the Tribunal. The landlord filed a counter claim for rent arrears on 5 May 2025.
The tenant’s claims that the landlord: i. Failed to provide for a means of collection and storage of water free from contamination, ii. Failed to maintain the ceiling in the lounge, iii. Failed to provide the property free of moisture and mould, iv. Failed to maintain the lights in the pantry and bathroom, v. Failed to meet the Healthy Homes Standards relating to heating and ventilation, vi. Failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards relating to smoke alarms, vii. Was responsible for issues concerning the connection of power to the property and for excessive power bills.
The tenant is seeking compensation of $25,480.00 and exemplary damages.
The landlord is claiming rent arrears to the end of the tenancy of $1,380.00.
The onus of proving these claims rest with the party making them. Both parties must establish more likely than not that the other has breached the terms of the agreement or the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”). The Landlord’s Claim
The landlord has claimed for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The amount is not disputed by the tenant. The Tenant’s Claims Water
The tenant’s claim is that the landlord has failed to provide the means for the storage and collection of water free from contamination.
The property comprises of two bedrooms, a bathroom, an open plan kitchen/dining/lounge area, a laundry, and carport. The property is approximately 20-25 years old and retains its original fixtures and fittings. The property is not on a reticulated mains water system. Water is collected from the roof and stored in a concrete tank with a capacity of approximately 10,000 litres.
Water is pumped from the tank into the house via a system that contains a filter. The landlord states that prior to the tenancy, the tank was cleaned, and the pump filter changed in 2020.
The tenant states that around March - April 2024, they noticed discolouration of the water in the bath, describing it as “murky”. The tenant states that they raised this with the property manager during an inspection. The tenant states that no action was taken and that her son subsequently became unwell. The tenant states the issue was raised again but remained unresolved.
On 6 June 2024, the tenant emailed the property manager raising several issues, including: “also the water is very “merky” [sic] and I wanted to see if the tank was leaking according to the photos I send through”.
The tenant states that on or about 14 June 2024 the landlords/owner (who reside nearby) visited the property. The tenant states they returned home from work to find them already there. The tenant states they didn’t mention the water issue at the time, as they assumed it was one of the matters being looked into by the owner.
Over the next couple of months there appears to have been reported issues concerning leaks and blockages which the tenant claims were only partially addressed.
On the 26 November 2024, the tenant advised the landlord that they, and their son, had become unwell and requested the water to be tested. The landlord advised they would have the tank cleaned and filter changed immediately. However, there was a delay of seven days. The tenant requested the landlord pay for alternative accommodation while the work was being completed, but the landlord declined. The tenant stated they lacked confidence that the issue would be resolved, and on 28 November 2024, gave two weeks’ notice to end the tenancy, which the landlord accepted.
On 2 December 2024, the tenant took samples of the water and sent them to a local laboratory for analysis. The results were received on 6 December 2024 and showed a positive result for E-coli at 2.420 MPN/100ml.
The landlord states that the first water related issue was raised in August 2023 and related to the tank overflowing as it was full. In December 2023, during an inspection, a hot water cylinder leak was detected, and the cylinder was replaced. In February 2024, the tank ran dry, and the tenant arranged for a water delivery. This was attributed to the dry summer conditions. On 19 March 2024, the tenant again advised the water in the tank was running low. The owners cleared the gutters. The landlord states there was an inspection in April 2024, but had no record of any issues being raised about quality of the water.
The landlord accepts that on 6 June 2024 the tenant had sent the message about the murky water, stating this was the first mention of this particular issue. The landlord stated that they had advised the owners and believed it had been investigated on 14 June 2024, and that the owner had not reported any issues.
The landlord later admitted that in fact the owners had not been advised of the issue, and there was no record of the matter being investigated.
The landlord states that there was an issue with the water pump in October 2024 which was fixed.
On 26 November 2024, the landlord received an e-mail from the tenant expressing concern about the quality of the water and stating that the tenant’s son had become unwell. The landlord states this was the first mention of illness.
The owner subsequently investigated and agreed to clean the tank, change the water, change the filter, and considered installing a second filter under the kitchen sink. The landlord accepted that they had declined the tenant’s request to pay for alternative accommodation as they did not consider obliged to. The landlord confirmed that on 28 November 2024, the tenant gave notice to end the tenancy, which they accepted. The tank was cleaned, the water replaced, and the filter changed on 2 December 2024. Law
Under section 45(1)(c) of the Act, a landlord must comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety, such as those contained in the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (“HIR”) , and the Building Act 2004 ( “Building Act”), which set out minimum standards for drinking water in residential properties.
Under section 45(1) (ca), if the property is not on a reticulated water supply (council supplied mains water), the landlord must provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water. A landlord is not obliged to provide the tenant with the water itself.
In Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV 2009 085-001431, 24 February 2010 the Court stated: “I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair the defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”.
Whether the landlord has failed to meet their obligations will require an objective assessment. Water / HIR
Regulation 7(2)(a) of the HIR states that the property must have an approved sink with a tap connected to an adequate supply of potable water.
Regulation 2 of the HIR defines potable water as water that is: (a) safe to drink; and (b) complies with the drinking water standards.
The “drinking water standards” are defined in the HIR as those made under section 47 of the Water Services Act 2021 (the “WSA”).
The Water Services (Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand) Regulations 2022, made under section 47 of the WSA, state that the maximum acceptable level of E-coli in drinking water is less than 1 in 100ml sampled (less than 1 MPN/100ml).
Regulation 9(2) of the HIR states that every bathroom shall contain an approved bath or shower with an adequate supply of wholesome water. “Wholesome” is not defined in the HIR. Water / Building Act
Section 123 (1)(b) of the Building Act 2004 provides that a building is deemed unsanitary if it does not have a supply of potable water that is adequate for its intended use.
As in the HIR potable water is defined as water that is safe to drink and complies with the drinking water standards.
As in the HIR, the drinking water standards in the Building Act are those made under the WSA.
In summary an adequate means for the collection and storage of water includes there being sufficient storage capacity, a functioning method of collecting water (e.g. roofs and guttering) which are properly maintained, storage that is free from contamination, a system for transmitting the water into and around the house, and for the treatment, such as filtration, for water that is intended for drinking.
Under both the HIR and the Building Act, water, which is intended for drinking [ my emphasis] must be free of E – coli.
There are no specific guidelines for acceptable E – coli levels in water used solely for bathing or washing dishes or clothing not intended for drinking. Decision
The tenant’s chronology of events was unclear, while the landlord’s is more consistent.
There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the issue of possible contamination was raised before the 6 June 2024. There is also insufficient evidence to suggest that up to that point, the landlord had either failed to address any concerns, or otherwise failed to maintain the storage and collection.
I am satisfied that the first time the tenant raised the issue concerning the quality of the water was on 6 June 2024.
Initially the landlord stated that the owner had been made aware of the matter and that it had been investigated on 14 June 2024, but later acknowledged that this had not occurred, and no investigation had taken place.
There is insufficient evidence that further water quality issues were then raised between June and September 2024.
When advised on 26 November 2024 that the occupants may have become unwell, the landlord arranged for the tank to be cleaned and filters replaced. Unfortunately, there was a delayed by five days which I accept was out of the landlord’s control. However, during this time the tenant was not given any advice about boiling water for drinking or provided with an alternate source of safe drinking water.
The tenant’s sample was collected in the morning of 02 December 2024. The tank was cleaned, and the filter replaced that afternoon. Follow up testing by the landlord provided a clear result.
Having been advised of health concerns, while the landlord acted appropriately arranging for cleaning and filter replacement, a reasonably prudent landlord would have taken immediate steps such as chemically treating the water, advising the tenant to boil drinking water, either providing, or offering to compensate the tenant for bottled drinking water.
In this case I find the landlord has breached their obligations by failing to properly investigate the matter on 6 June 2024. The breach in this case covers the period 06 June 2024 to 26 November 2024. I am not satisfied that the issue concerning quality was necessarily raised before 06 June 2024.
No medical evidence has been provided concerning any illness suffered by the occupants due to the quality of the water or any financial loss.
Nonetheless I am satisfied that the landlord’s breach has caused the tenant inconvenience and discomfort. In this case the Tribunal awards the tenant compensation of $1,000.00 for loss of amenity. Leak in the Ceiling
The tenant states that on 20 April 2024, they detected a leak in the lounge ceiling. A photograph of the leak has been produced. They sent the photograph to the landlord, but claim no action was taken. They state they subsequently raised the issue by telephone, but again no action was taken, and then again in November 2024. To their knowledge the matter remained unresolved. They state that when it rained, they had been forced to move furniture to avoid water damage.
The landlord states the first record they have of the issue being raised was on 15 November 2024. That they advised the owner, who suggested it was an intermittent leak dependant on the direction of the weather. However, the landlord acknowledges that there is no record of anyone attending the property to investigate the leak.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair. This obligation involves investigating any reported issues within a reasonable period.
In this case, there is clear evidence that the landlord was advised of the leak on 20 April 2024 and again on 15 November 2024, yet no steps were taken to properly investigate the matter. In my view, this constitutes a breach of the landlord’s obligations. Apart from inconvenience there is no evidence of any loss suffered in the form of damage to property. Based on the evidence I am satisfied however that there was a minor loss of amenity. Accordingly, I award the tenant compensation of $50.00. Mould
The tenant claims that the interior and exterior of the property were affected by excessive moisture and mould. Under the provisions of the Act and the HIR the landlord must provide the property free from excessive moisture and dampness. However, no evidence was produced in support of this claim, and it is dismissed. Lighting
On or about 14 July 2024, the tenant advised the landlord of issues with the pantry light and a light in the bathroom. The tenant states an electrician attended and advised that the light in the pantry had been unlawfully installed, and subsequently removed it. The light was not replaced. The tenant also states nothing was done about the light in the bathroom.
The landlord accepts that the pantry light was removed and not replaced. The landlord produced an invoice from the electrician indicating that there was no issue with the bathroom light.
Under Regulation 11 HIR the landlord must provide adequate means of artificial lighting sufficient to illuminate adequately every kitchen or kitchenette. While there is no evidence that the pantry required artificial illumination, the tenant’s expectation that the existing light would be replaced was reasonable. I am satisfied that there has been a minor loss of amenity and I award the tenant $50.00. Heating and ventilation
The tenant questions whether the property complies with the Healthy Homes Heating Standards. The tenant states that the property was cold and that the heating provided, which was an enclosed fireplace in the main living room, was not sufficient to heat the entire house.
The Healthy Homes Standards for heating for this tenancy came into effect on 1 June 2023. Prior to that the property was subject to the provisions of the HIR which state that the landlord must provide an approved form of heating in the main living room. The Healthy Homes Heating Standards impose higher standards than those under the HIR.
The landlord has produced a Healthy Homes compliance report dated 5 April 2022. The report shows the enclosed fireplace does not meet the minimum requirements of the HHS Heating Standard. The failure was due to the heat output of the fireplace being unknown. The report also noted that the kitchen did not meet the ventilation standard.
The HHS compliance statement provided with the tenancy agreement records that the property did not meet the HHS heating and ventilation requirements.
The landlord states that the owner subsequently obtained an independent assessment confirming that the enclosed fireplace in fact exceeded the required output. The landlord has also produced a letter from a registered electrician stating that due to the construction of the property it was not possible to install a fan in the kitchen and that the property was exempted.
Based on the evidence I am not satisfied that the property fails to comply with the HHS standards for heating and ventilation. The claim is dismissed. Smoke Alarms
Under the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, there must be a smoke alarm placed within three meters of the entrance of any bedroom.
The tenant questioned whether the smoke alarm was correctly installed. No evidence was provided that it was not. A short video produced by the tenant shows the alarm concerned sitting on the kitchen bench. The tenant stated that it had “fallen off” but did not report this to the landlord. There is insufficient evidence to be satisfied there has been a breach of the landlord’s obligations, and the claim is dismissed. Electricity disconnection issue
On or about 1 March 2023, the tenant states they arranged for the electricity at the property to be put in their name. Shortly after being connected, the power was then unexpectedly disconnected. The tenant was without power for 48 hours until the provider arranged reconnection. Initially this had been scheduled to take place on 6 March 2023, but the tenant was not home, and it occurred on 7 March 2023.
The provider appears to have accepted some responsibility for the matter and gave the tenant $100.00 and waived the reconnection fee.
The tenant states that the initial disconnection had been because the landlord had registered the property under the wrong ICP number.
On the evidence, I cannot determine whether there has been any breach of the Act by the landlord.
The tenant also complained about the high electricity charges suggesting that they had been attributable to a failure by the landlord to meet their obligations under the Act. In November 2023, the tenant raised the matter with the landlord for the first time. The landlord asked for details of the power bills. The tenant didn’t supply the actual bills but sent details of correspondence to the provider concerning hardship. The tenant then, sometime later sent the electricity bills which the landlord then sent to the owner. The landlord stated that the tenant gave notice to vacate the property, but later rescinded that notice.
The tenant accepts that over the winter months they had used electric heaters to heat the property. It is likely that this has contributed to a high winter power bill.
On or about 21 February 2024, the tenant changed providers to a pre-pay arrangement, allowing them to monitor their power usage more easily. The tenant also suggested that the issue with the hot water cylinder may have been a contributing factor, but there is insufficient evidence to support that claim.
The claims relating to the electricity are dismissed. Exemplary damages
Breaching any of the obligations in section 45 of the Act is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
Where a party has intentionally committed an act or omission, and that act or omission constitutes a breach of the Act, which is also an unlawful act, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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) of the Act.
In TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182, the Court confirmed under section 109 of the Act that 'Intentional' means an act or omission committed "deliberately and with full knowledge".
Regarding the failure to provide and maintain an adequate means for the collection and storage of water. Although there has been a breach, I am not satisfied that the property managers failing to pass the matter onto the owner was an intentional act or omission. It appears more likely to have been an oversight. As stated, after 06 June 2024, I am not satisfied the quality of the water was raised again until 26 November 2024, after which the landlord immediate steps to address the issue. No evidence supporting the tenant’s claim that the occupants became unwell due to the water has been provided. Considering the factors in section 109(3) I am not satisfied that exemplary damages are justified.
Regarding the failures to properly investigate the ceiling leak and replace the light in the pantry, these were minor and, in my opinion, do not warrant exemplary damages. Costs
In this case both parties have been sufficiently successful to justify reimbursement of the filing fee, however as an award to one will essentially cancel the award to the other, no orders are made. Name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act (the “Act”) provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
The landlord has been substantially successful in these proceedings, seeks and is granted name suppression.
Although the tenant has not been substantially successful, having witnessed and heard the tenant give evidence I am satisfied that it is appropriate to also order suppression of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5161031 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5161031 — Rent arrears

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