Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5209231 — Property damage
Decided 13 Nov 2025 · Published 13 Nov 2025 · Application 5209231
- Property damage
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names of all parties and identifying details.
- The landlord is to pay the tenants the sum of $594.00 as per the table below.
Reasons
- Before me is an application by the tenants and a cross application by the landlord.
- The tenancy in this matter commenced on 1 September 2023 and came to an end on 2 March 2025.
- The tenants claim: a. Damages of $930 for 3 tanks of excess water that was consumed due to water leaks between the tank and the pump. b. Damages for extra rent that had to be paid to their prior landlord because the power was not connected when they first moved into the property. The power could not be connected for three days (although during the hearing [the tenant/s] said it was four days). Because the power was not connected the water would not pump and the premises were essentially unliveable. They were also claiming the power reconnection fee, but this has been reimbursed to the tenants. c. Repairs to a gate of $922.00. During a storm, the gate leading out to the main road blew off. The tenants had it repaired at a cost of $922, and now claim this sum from the landlord. d. The cost of replacement of all broken lights, discovered when the tenants moved into the property. They say they told the landlord about this at the time and the landlord agreed to reimburse them but has never done so. e. $1500 for breach of quiet enjoyment and harassment, due to overuse of breach notices. The tenants claim they received 8 or 9 breach notices for often minor issues.
- The landlord claims: a. $310 for a delivery of water b. $378 for repairs to some doors c. $624.85, for checks to the water tanks following allegedly unsubstantiated claims of water leaks by the tenants. The landlord says this cost was unnecessary. Burden of proof
- Before I go on to deal with the claims each party has made, I first comment on the relevant burden of proof.
- I begin by noting that in regard to the burden of proof, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. They must establish that what they are claiming is more probable than not.
- Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and reports and photographs can be an important part of discharging this burden.
- The parties must collect the relevant evidence they rely on and produce that evidence to the tribunal at the hearing. It is not for the tribunal to extract or locate the evidence, or to hunt down and call witnesses itself.
- Ultimately, it is therefore for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, in practical terms this means that: 1 ...[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.
- I will deal first with the tenant’s claims (since these were filed first) and then with the landlord’s claims. The exception is for the water claim; it is convenient to deal with both those claims together. The tenant’s claim due to the power being disconnected
- The premises are a semi-rural property. There were two water tanks above ground at the property. A pump ensures that water is pumped into the house.
- The tenants claim rent reimbursement related to the fact that the power was not connected when they attempted to first move into the property on 1 September 2023. The power could not be connected for three days, although this was adjusted to four days at the hearing. They claim the cost of rent for four days at their prior tenancy.
- They also no longer claim the power reconnection fee since this has been reimbursed by the landlord.
- When there was no power, the property was essentially unliveable, because the water pump would not work. The tenants claim they had to go back to their prior tenancy, although they offered little corroborating evidence of that or the fact they paid an additional $444 to their prior landlord (this is the calculation of 4 days rent @ $111 per day.)
- I accept the premises were unliveable until the power could be reconnected (noting that the landlord says this was on 1 September 2023) but find that the tenants have not proven on the balance of probabilities that they paid an additional $444 to their prior landlord.
- This aspect of the claim is dismissed. The tenant’s claim for excess water and the landlord’s cross claim
- The tenants claim damages of $930 for three tanks worth of excess water they consumed due to water leaks between the tank and the pump. They say that 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy DC Waitakere 233/02, 12 April 2002, at [7]. normally they would expect to consume one to two tanks per annum but that essentially their water consumption more than doubled in the time they were at these premises. They say they were buying a tank of water every three months.
- The landlord is saying that the water leaks were repaired but that the tenant continued to complain, when ultimately the reason for the excessive water consumption was just down to the tenants consuming an excessive amount of water. The landlord also says that in any event the landlord has paid for extra tanks of water to be delivered to the tenant.
- As best I have been able to piece together the relevant timeline of events regarding the alleged faults with the water pump/pipes/tanks is as follows 2 : a. On Friday 10 November 2023 the water pump stopped working. b. The tenants were left with no water until the next day when the tenant used one of his own work pumps to get the pump working. c. The tenant contacted the landlord, and the landlord arranged to send the plumber around. d. The following Wednesday, 15 November 2024, [plumber 1] attended to the property at the cost of the landlord and installed a new water pump. Its invoice records that the pump was beyond repair. e. Within about a week, the tenant’s son complained that the water pump was running on. It was not cutting out as it should. The tenant is a plumber and this indicated to him that the pump was potentially leaking water. The tenant had a look at it to see if there were any obvious signs of the leak but did not notice anything. f. The tenant also noticed they were using a lot of water. g. This time the landlord sent out [plumber 2] but the [plumber 2] did a visual inspection and could not find anything. h. The tenant did a standard pressure test however and the pressure dropped, meaning there was a leak somewhere on pipe work between the tanks and the water pump. i. The tenant told the landlord about his own test but the landlord said that [plumber 2] had not found a leak. j. [Plumber 1] attended at the premises again in May 2024. It replaced a leaking temperature relief valve. It replaced the water filters. 2 Note that I have not included all details here. k. On 30 May 2024, the landlord got the tanks vacuumed by [plumbing expert 1] Services. Nothing was discovered about leaks at that time. l. On 26 June 2024, the landlord arranged for [plumber 2] to check for leaks, following a complaint from the tenant about excess water. [plumber 2] concluded there was no discernible leak. m. A tank of water was delivered to the property on 27 June 2024. This was organised by the tenant but the landlord paid for it. (This was the second tank of water the landlord had by now paid for the tenant). n. On 15 August 2024, following a further complaint by the tenants, [plumbing expert 2] inspected the property. Its invoice records that that the tenant said the pump keeps turning on and water usage has been high. It performed some repairs and concluded that the cause of the water pump starting up was due to a leak in the section line from the water tanks to the pump. o. [Plumbing expert 2] returned to the property around a month later to dig a new trench and suction line from the water tanks to the house. p. The tenant continued to insist there must be a leak in the tanks. He said the pump was still ticking on. q. In October 2024, the landlord engaged a plumber, [plumbing expert 1] Services, to inspect the alleged leak. He sent an invoice dated 15 October 2024 to the landlord for $60 in which he recorded: Inspected 2 x plastic tanks at [Tenancy address suppressed]. No damage is visible. Usual conditions present for a leaking tank are swampy soil around the outer ground diameter of the tanks or excessive water. There is none of this present. I was also able to check the soil depth to a 1/2 foot deep, it was dry. In a leaking tank environment it would be very wet. The main water pipe from the gutters is full of water. This is a good indicator that water is getting into the tanks from rain fall. It also indicates that the pipe is intact. I do not think there is a leak in the tanks and I believe the main delivery pipe is functional. r. Because of the history, the landlord wanted to be sure there was nothing further. The landlord has most probably asked [plumbing expert 1] what could be done to check there was no possibility of an issue with the tanks. [plumbing expert 1] must have then recommended a leak research experiment because that was the next step that was taken. This involved the landlord buying a full tank of water. This work cost $350 and the water tank cost of $310. s. The leak research experiment showed there were no faults, however the tenant was still saying he was running out of water. t. Another pump expert, [plumbing expert 3], has supplied a statement dated 5 February 2025 stating that there is a light drop in pressure while the pump is not running and that this could indicated that either there is a small leak in the pipe or fittings leading from the pump to the house or the non-return valve is bypassing slightly. u. The landlord claims that it was a hot summer and that the tenant was just using a lot of water. It claims that the [plumbing expert 1] leak research experiment and the water tank that was required for that work produced no evidence of a further fault and that this cost was a wasted expenditure. The landlord is essentially arguing that any excess of water was normal household consumption.
- I find that the premises has had a faulty water pump / pipes, which have caused the tenant to consume more water than they otherwise would. I consider it was reasonable for the tenant to complain about the water usage, given the clear evidence of a fault.
- Although the [plumbing expert 1] experiment has not identified any further faults, I am not at all persuaded that the cost of that work should be met by the tenants, just because no faults were identified. There has been a history of faults with the water facilities at the property. It was a reasonable assumption for the tenants to conclude that their excessive water consumption was possibly due to yet another fault with the water tanks/ pump / pipes.
- The landlord’s cross application is dismissed but ultimately, so is the tenant’s. I had little corroborating information about the tenant’s excessive consumption, and I consider that the free deliveries of water as noted above that the landlord has ultimately paid for adequately compensate the tenants for any excessive water use due to the water faults. The tenant’s claim for repairs to the gate
- The tenants claim reimbursement of repairs to the gate of $922.00. During a storm, the gate leading out to the main road blew off. The tenants had it repaired at a cost of $922, and now claim this sum from the landlord.
- The gate was the gate on to the main road. The tenant has dogs and needed to keep the premises secure. He claims he contacted the then property manager and she said go ahead and get the work done. He has not got photos of the damaged gate as the phone he was using has been destroyed.
- The tenants produced an invoice from a [tradesman], who performed the work with the tenant. The tenant did not charge for his time attending to these repairs.
- The landlord (being the new property manager) says there was no opportunity for repair and that there are no photos of the broken gate. She was not however the property manager managing the property at the time of the repairs. [the property manager] was following correct procedure for a property manager in requesting evidence of the damaged gate and cannot be criticised for that. The trouble is that it was a prior property manager who gave the green light for the tenant to do the work.
- I accept the tenant’s evidence that the gate blew off and that repairs were required and approved by the landlord. Ultimately the landlord has benefited because they now have a new gate. The landlord wanted evidence that the prior gate was damaged but it makes no sense to me the a tenant would go to the expense of this sort of repair in the absence of there being damage. A tenant would not normally replace a perfectly acceptable gate for no reason.
- I reject the landlord’s implication that the invoice was not genuine. The mere bald allegation as such is not enough to cast doubt of the validity of the document.
- This part of the tenant’s claim is upheld. The tenants claim for breach of quiet enjoyment
- The tenants claim $1500 for breach of quiet enjoyment and harassment, due to overuse of breach notices. The tenants claim they received 8 or 9 breach notices for minor issues.
- During this period of time, the tenant had a lot of financial hardship. They claim that the landlord would issue breach notices for small amounts and sometimes only one day late.
- The tenants felt harassed.
- The landlord said they were just following normal protocol.
- A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See s 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
- Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See se 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
- Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
- I accept the tenants would have felt stressed by all these noticed but the facts of this case do not amount to a breach of the obligation of quite enjoyment. The landlord was merely exercising their contractual and statutory rights to issue breach notices. Landlord do typically chase up arrears promptly. They are sometimes required to, in order to meet their insurance obligations. The tenant’s claim for replacement of broken lights
- The tenants claim $104.10 for replacement of all broken lights, discovered when the tenants moved into the property.
- They say they told the landlord about this and the landlord agreed to reimburse them but has never done so.
- The property manager claims she did not get the light bulbs invoices at the time. She claims there are no photographs of the bulb of other evidence of the lights not working. She says one of the lights is a torch light.
- This claim is in the same category as the gate. There is nothing to refute the tenant’s evidence he was told the landlord would reimburse him this cost. That said, not has be chased it up. I also agree with the landlord’s submissions at least about the torch light.
- I am prepared to award the tenants $50 for the lights that were not working. I consider that a reasonably foreseeable amount to award them as a result of the broken light bulbs. I consider this sum does adequate justice between the parties. 3 The landlord’s claim for repairs to doors
- The landlord claims repairs for $378 to three doors, which clearly seem to have been scratched by dogs. The tenants had three dogs. Two of the doors are from the rooms of the tenant’s children.
- I consider it highly probable that the doors were scratched by the tenant’s dogs.
- This damage is intentional and should be paid for by the tenants. It is not wear and tear. It is the sort of damage that can flow from having dogs. I consider the 3 Section 85 of the RTA. amount that it cost to repair the damage to be reasonable. The tenants should pay this sum to the landlord.
- Both parties have otherwise had some success in their position and so I award name suppression in favour of both sides but I award neither return of the filing fee.