What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5204796 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 5204796?

Compensation: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5204796?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5204796?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12543654-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5204796 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 5204796?

Compensation: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5204796?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5204796?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12543654-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

48 Daniell Street, Featherston, Featherston 5710 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5204796 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

48 Daniell Street, Featherston, Featherston 5710 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5204796 — 14-day notice | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

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

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5204796. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation		$300.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Claims and awards for application 5204796. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Property Brokers Wairarapa Limited Acting On Behalf Of Karen And Charles Goldsworthy And Cook Fiona Nelson must pay [The tenant/s] $227.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionTenant Compensation$300.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$327.00

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlords. At the hearing, the tenant confirmed that her claim was for compensation in relation to blockages to the toilet at the premises.
Both parties appeared at the hearing.

BACKGROUND

This tenancy commenced on 2 October 2024, the weekly rental is $560.00.
Early on in the tenancy, the tenant experienced blockages to the only toilet in the premises.
The first blockage was reported to the landlord on 15 October, during the evening, and the plumber attended that same evening, unblocking the toilet.
Second blockage was reported on 26 November, but then the tenant got back to the landlord shortly following to advise the toilet was then unblocked. A plumber had been arranged, but was cancelled given they were not required. At that time, the plumber indicated to the Property Manager the soil pipe would need to be replaced, so the owner was advised of that. A quote for the replacement of the pipe was then obtained and provided to the owner.
The third blockage was then on 1 December, and the plumber attended and unblocked the toilet.
The fourth blockage was then on 5 December.
The tenant then provided the landlord a 14-day notice to remedy the blockage. Within the 14 days, a plumber attended and replaced the pipe outside the house, that work was on 17 December 2024.
No further issues were raised after the pipe was replaced.
On 17 February 2025, the tenancy ended. The tenant has since applied for compensation.

TENANTS CASE

At the hearing, the applicant confirmed her only claim related to compensation for the toilet blockages.
The tenant described the impact the blockages had on her and her family, which included needing to use public toilets, particularly difficult in this case given the tenant had a health-related condition, where having toilet facilities were important.
As a result of the blockages, the tenant said there was inconvenience to her, in needing to meet the plumber at the premises on several occasions, and needing to lose two days of work.
There were other inconveniences, such as needing to regularly flush the toilet to ensure it was well flushed.
Further, the tenant states that when the pipe was replaced, the plumber left toilet paper and other detritus on her lawn, from the old blocked pipe. The plumber used the tenants hose to put down the blocked pipe, and because it was contaminated, she has since thrown that hose out.
The tenant consider the tenancy should not have been rented to her, as it was not in a rentable condition.
The tenant said there was no communication about fixing the issue until the 14 day notice was issued.

LANDLORDS CASE

The landlord opposes compensation being provided.
The Property Manager set out the history of the pipe blockages as set out above.
It was submitted that the landlord has acted quickly each time when blockages occurred, including getting the pipe replaced.
The landlord notes that following the pipe being replaced, no further issues have been reported.
The Property Manager states she was not aware the lawn had been left in a messy state after the pipe was replaced, and if it had been brought to her attention, she would have followed up with the plumber.
As far as the application for compensation is concerned, the landlord’s position is that it did what it could reasonably have done, and to that extent, compensation is opposed.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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 and expectations.
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 fractionally 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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

ANALYSIS

The RTA requires that landlords provide the premises at the start of the tenancy meeting the necessary legal criteria, and if during the tenancy, maintenance is needed, then the landlord must undertake that work.
In this case, there is no evidence to show that the premises did not meet the necessary building requirements at the start of the tenancy. The onus is on the tenant to prove it did not meet those requirements, and she has not proven that.
I am not persuaded that there is a breach of any legal obligation just because the toilet blocked, or because the pipe needed replacement. The reality is that at times toilets block for a range of reasons. The legal obligation on the landlord is to remedy the blockage – and I find the landlord did do that. On the evidence available, I consider the landlord acted quickly to get plumbers on site to address the blockages. When the 14-day notice was provided, the landlord had the main pipe replaced within that time, which is also consistent with the landlord’s obligations.
It must also be recognised, that houses do from time to time require maintenance. Plumbing fixtures don’t last forever, just like electrical fittings, carpets and most fittings and fixtures. This is recognised in the RTA where it sets out requirements for notice for landlords to enter premises to do this work for example. But there is nothing unusual in a landlord needing to maintain the premises.
However, I do consider that some level of compensation should be provided to the tenant. I accept that she was not getting the level of amenity in the premises that she was paying rent for. I accept it has caused inconvenience for her and her family.
While I accept that the impact was greater for the tenant given her health circumstances, I cannot put weight on that when determining the level of compensation. The expectations of a landlord are viewed based on tenants in general, not the specific circumstances for a particular tenant.
When I step back and consider what would be a fail level of compensation, I have determined that should be $300.00. I have taken into account the number of blockages, the likely inconvenience, and the level of rent paid for these premises.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the tenant has applied for name suppression, and given her level of success, I consider tenant name suppression should be ordered.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding.

Claims & awards

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

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5204796. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation		$300.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Claims and awards for application 5204796. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Property Brokers Wairarapa Limited Acting On Behalf Of Karen And Charles Goldsworthy And Cook Fiona Nelson must pay [The tenant/s] $227.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionTenant Compensation$300.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$327.00

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlords. At the hearing, the tenant confirmed that her claim was for compensation in relation to blockages to the toilet at the premises.
Both parties appeared at the hearing.

BACKGROUND

This tenancy commenced on 2 October 2024, the weekly rental is $560.00.
Early on in the tenancy, the tenant experienced blockages to the only toilet in the premises.
The first blockage was reported to the landlord on 15 October, during the evening, and the plumber attended that same evening, unblocking the toilet.
Second blockage was reported on 26 November, but then the tenant got back to the landlord shortly following to advise the toilet was then unblocked. A plumber had been arranged, but was cancelled given they were not required. At that time, the plumber indicated to the Property Manager the soil pipe would need to be replaced, so the owner was advised of that. A quote for the replacement of the pipe was then obtained and provided to the owner.
The third blockage was then on 1 December, and the plumber attended and unblocked the toilet.
The fourth blockage was then on 5 December.
The tenant then provided the landlord a 14-day notice to remedy the blockage. Within the 14 days, a plumber attended and replaced the pipe outside the house, that work was on 17 December 2024.
No further issues were raised after the pipe was replaced.
On 17 February 2025, the tenancy ended. The tenant has since applied for compensation.

TENANTS CASE

At the hearing, the applicant confirmed her only claim related to compensation for the toilet blockages.
The tenant described the impact the blockages had on her and her family, which included needing to use public toilets, particularly difficult in this case given the tenant had a health-related condition, where having toilet facilities were important.
As a result of the blockages, the tenant said there was inconvenience to her, in needing to meet the plumber at the premises on several occasions, and needing to lose two days of work.
There were other inconveniences, such as needing to regularly flush the toilet to ensure it was well flushed.
Further, the tenant states that when the pipe was replaced, the plumber left toilet paper and other detritus on her lawn, from the old blocked pipe. The plumber used the tenants hose to put down the blocked pipe, and because it was contaminated, she has since thrown that hose out.
The tenant consider the tenancy should not have been rented to her, as it was not in a rentable condition.
The tenant said there was no communication about fixing the issue until the 14 day notice was issued.

LANDLORDS CASE

The landlord opposes compensation being provided.
The Property Manager set out the history of the pipe blockages as set out above.
It was submitted that the landlord has acted quickly each time when blockages occurred, including getting the pipe replaced.
The landlord notes that following the pipe being replaced, no further issues have been reported.
The Property Manager states she was not aware the lawn had been left in a messy state after the pipe was replaced, and if it had been brought to her attention, she would have followed up with the plumber.
As far as the application for compensation is concerned, the landlord’s position is that it did what it could reasonably have done, and to that extent, compensation is opposed.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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 and expectations.
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 fractionally 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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

ANALYSIS

The RTA requires that landlords provide the premises at the start of the tenancy meeting the necessary legal criteria, and if during the tenancy, maintenance is needed, then the landlord must undertake that work.
In this case, there is no evidence to show that the premises did not meet the necessary building requirements at the start of the tenancy. The onus is on the tenant to prove it did not meet those requirements, and she has not proven that.
I am not persuaded that there is a breach of any legal obligation just because the toilet blocked, or because the pipe needed replacement. The reality is that at times toilets block for a range of reasons. The legal obligation on the landlord is to remedy the blockage – and I find the landlord did do that. On the evidence available, I consider the landlord acted quickly to get plumbers on site to address the blockages. When the 14-day notice was provided, the landlord had the main pipe replaced within that time, which is also consistent with the landlord’s obligations.
It must also be recognised, that houses do from time to time require maintenance. Plumbing fixtures don’t last forever, just like electrical fittings, carpets and most fittings and fixtures. This is recognised in the RTA where it sets out requirements for notice for landlords to enter premises to do this work for example. But there is nothing unusual in a landlord needing to maintain the premises.
However, I do consider that some level of compensation should be provided to the tenant. I accept that she was not getting the level of amenity in the premises that she was paying rent for. I accept it has caused inconvenience for her and her family.
While I accept that the impact was greater for the tenant given her health circumstances, I cannot put weight on that when determining the level of compensation. The expectations of a landlord are viewed based on tenants in general, not the specific circumstances for a particular tenant.
When I step back and consider what would be a fail level of compensation, I have determined that should be $300.00. I have taken into account the number of blockages, the likely inconvenience, and the level of rent paid for these premises.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the tenant has applied for name suppression, and given her level of success, I consider tenant name suppression should be ordered.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5204796 — 14-day notice at 48 Daniell Street, Featherston, Featherston 5710

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5204796 — 14-day notice at 48 Daniell Street, Featherston, Featherston 5710

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CASE

LANDLORDS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CASE

LANDLORDS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions