How much money was awarded in case 5229933?

Advertising Costs (Ordered By Consen…: $399.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229933?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229933?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12036103-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5229933?

Advertising Costs (Ordered By Consen…: $399.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229933?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229933?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12036103-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

4 Takapu Street, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5229933 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5229933 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5229933 — net $728.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Advertising costs (ordered by consent	$399.00		Advertising costs (ordered by consent
Compensation for loss of amenity and stress		$1,100.00	Compensation for loss of amenity and stress
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$399.00	$1,127.00
Net award		$728.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$728.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 4 Takapu Street, Henderson, Auckland 0612 is reduced and now ends at 11.59pm on Friday 4 July 2025. This order is made by consent.

The landlord will allow the tenant to do further cleaning on Saturday 5 July 2025 and will meet the tenant at the property at 4pm that day to collect the key. This order is made by consent.

The landlord will not claim the cost of any plumbing or related invoices from the tenant. This order is made by consent. 5.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Mathew Koshy, who was accompanied by the owners of the property, Peter and Jenny Grace.

This tenancy began on 28 February 2025 and is for a fixed term of one year, expiring on 27 February 2026. The rental for the property is $850.00 per week.

The tenancy property is a two-storey brick house with one unit upstairs and a granny flat and garage downstairs. The tenancy was for the entire property. The tenant’s sister lived in the granny flat. The tenant lived in the upstairs unit with her children.

On 9 April 2025 the tenant filed a claim seeking the following orders from the Tribunal: a. Reduction of the fixed term of the tenancy; b. Compensation for breach of Healthy Homes standards/failure to maintain; and c. Compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment. Consent orders

During the morning adjournment the parties discussed matters and reached agreement on the first part of the tenant’s claim.

The parties agreed that: a. The tenancy will end on 4 July 2025; b. The tenant will be able to access the property on 5 July 2025 to clean the property and the landlord will meet the tenant at 4pm that day so that she can hand back the key. c. The tenant will pay the landlord the sum of $399.00 for the cost of advertising for a new tenant.

These orders are therefore made by consent. Tenant’s compensation claims Breach of Healthy Homes standards/failure to maintain Tenant’s position

The tenant said that when she moved into the property ongoing repairs had not been finished. She said that because of repairs to flooring in the upstairs laundry she could not use her washing machine for the first two weeks, but when the work was finished one of the landlord’s contractors moved her washing machine to the upstairs laundry and connected it up ready for use.

The tenant explained that when she first used the washing machine on 12 March 2025 water started pouring out of the ceiling into the garage below. She said that she shut off the washing machine and checked but could not see any leaks. She said that it appeared to be dry all around the washing machine. She called the landlord to let them know.

The landlord immediately contacted a plumber who attended the following morning. The plumber concluded that the leak had been caused by the tenant’s washing machine. The landlord produced a copy of the plumber’s report dated 13 March 2025. The plumber stated in their report that did various checks and eventually discovered metal pieces jammed in the pump line of the washing machine and recommended that the tenant get her washing machine checked.

The tenant said that she booked an appointment to have her machine checked but in the meantime she moved the machine out from the wall and had it run through a cycle with towels carefully placed around it and found that no leaks occurred. She concluded that her washing machine was not leaking.

However the tenant said that another leak occurred again on 5 April 2025. She again contacted her landlord who sent the same plumber to inspect. The landlord also contacted their insurer who sent an assessor. The tenant became concerned that she might end up liable for the cost of repairs and so made a booking to have her washing machine checked.

The parties provided copies of the various reports at the hearing as follows: a. Tenant’s washing machine contractor’s report dated 7 April 2025. This report confirms extensive checks, removal of the small metal piece, confirmation that this could not have caused the leak and confirmation that the machine is not leaking. b. Landlord’s insurance assessor’s report dated 8 April 2025. This report states: “I think the pipe was leaky, nothing to do with the washing machine, I am not a plumber nor a service tech for washing machines but the water damage does not suggest any sudden event from washing machine, laundry vinyl and subfloor completely dry”. c. Landlord’s plumbers report dated 11 April 2025. The plumber outlined more extensive checks and could not find the source of the leak, queried whether the washing machine lint cover had been removed and not correctly refitted (causing a leak) and noted that a report from the tenant’s appliance repair agent would confirm if any repairs had been made.

The tenant said that the insurance assessor pulled down the pink batts that were in the ceiling in the garage and this made it much easier to see where the leak was coming from. She said that the leak continued and most frequently happened when the washing machine and shower were used at the same time. She said that the leak is ongoing and intermittent and most recently leaked on 15 June 2025.

The tenant produced a copy of an email to the landlord dated 16 June 2025 titled “still leaking” and attaching three videos of leaks coming through the ceiling.

The tenant said that the landlord insists that the leak was caused by her washing machine despite her report stating that the washing machine is not faulty.

She said that the insurance assessor pulled back carpet and found extensive mould and concluded that there has been a gradual leak. She said that the landlord has now sealed this mould (as removal would require extensive work requiring her to move out) and that she does not seek compensation for mould but raises mould as an issue as evidence of a longstanding ongoing leak at the tenancy.

The tenant said that the landlord continues to seek payment of the initial plumbing invoice from her and has taken no further steps to fix the leak.

The tenant said that the entire situation has been very stressful, that she has no confidence that the leak will be fixed and she is worried that any damage to the property will be blamed on her. Landlord’s position

The landlord said that they allowed the tenant to access the property early while works were still ongoing. Mr Grace said that towards the end of the previous tenancy they found that the flooring had lifted in the bathroom. Once the flooring was lifted up for repairs he discovered that the thin ply underneath had rotted and that this had travelled under the wall and into the laundry. He wondered if there had been a leak from the shower and undertook investigations but no leak was found. Eventually he concluded that the water damage may have been caused by the previous tenants allowing water to accumulate on the bathroom floor.

The landlord said that the repairs took longer than expected due to a contractor breaking their leg but the flooring was fixed and the property was completed two weeks after the tenant moved in. The landlord said that they offered the tenant a rent rebate of $300.00 for the inconvenience during this period which the tenant accepted.

The landlord said that they took immediate steps when they were notified of the leak on 12 March 2025. They said that the plumber told them that the leak was caused by the tenant’s washing machine and they saw no reason not to accept the plumber’s advice.

The landlord said that when they were told of the second leak on 5 April 2025 they contacted the plumber again and also contacted their insurer. They said they did not agree with the insurance assessor’s report which stated that the leak was not caused by the washing machine and was a gradual leak. They said that they relied on the plumber’s report stating that the leak may have been caused by the washing machine and needed to be checked.

The landlord said that the tenant then almost immediately lodged this claim in the Tribunal. They said that they were unaware of any further leaks. They thought the leak had been resolved. Mr Koshy denied receiving the tenant’s email of 16 June 2025 attaching videos of continued leaking and produced his phone to show that he had not received the email.

Is the tenant entitled to compensation?

I consider that the tenant’s claim is most appropriately deal with as a claim for breach of the landlord’s obligations to maintain and repair the property.

Section 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.

It is expected that all properties will require ongoing maintenance and that from time to time repairs will be required. Landlord’s are only in breach of their obligations if they have notice of a maintenance or repair issue and fail to take appropriate steps in a reasonable time frame.

I consider that the landlord’s actions in response to the first leak to be entirely reasonable. They promptly engaged a plumber and I consider that they were entitled to rely on the plumber’s advice that the leak was caused by the tenant’s washing machine.

When the second leak occurred the landlord also took prompt action and had their plumber conduct further investigations and contacted their insurer. While the plumber could not find the cause of the leak and concluded that the issue may still remain the tenant’s washing machine, I do not consider that the landlord could reasonably rely on that advice when their own insurer had engaged an assessor who stated that the tenant’s washing machine was not the cause and the tenant has also obtained their own report stating that their washing machine was not faulty.

I consider that the landlord should have taken further steps to investigate the cause of the leak once they had received the additional reports. This is particularly so because the landlord had discovered water damage in the bathroom and laundry during the previous tenancy and the cause was never conclusively identified. The landlord should have investigated further regardless of whether they were subsequently told of further leaks.

The tenant has had to deal with inconvenience of ongoing leaks but has also spent considerable time communicating with the landlord out of concern that she might be held responsible for damage caused by the leaks, despite evidence that (at least by the time of the second leak) her washing machine was not faulty. This situation has caused the tenant considerable ongoing stress.

I consider that the landlord was in breach of their obligations when they failed to undertake further investigations into the cause of the leak following the report from their insurer on 8 April 2025.

In my view the tenant is entitled to some compensation from 9 April 2025 to today’s date for the loss of amenity caused by the leak and the ongoing stress.

It is not always possible to be precise in calculating compensation. However taking into account all of the circumstances of this tenancy, the total rental paid, the time spent by the tenant in dealing with the leak, engaging her own contractor and dealing with the landlord and their contractors I consider $100 per week in from 9 April 2025 to today’s date (11 weeks) to be appropriate in all the circumstances.

The total amount awarded is $1,100. Breach of quiet enjoyment

Section 38(3) of the RTA states that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant.

The tenant said that on two occasions contractors turned up unannounced.

On the first occasion the owner, Peter Grace, turned up to fix a heat pump remote to the wall. She said that she let him in and thought he was a contractor until she realised that he knew a lot about the property and he identified himself as the owner.

On the second occasion the landlord sent the plumber to the property following the second leak after the tenant asked that the plumber only attend with her present. The plumber attended anyway, while a young person was at the property alone, but was denied entry.

I acknowledge that the tenancy is the tenant’s home and that it can be very disruptive and inconvenient to have contractors turn up without notice. Mr Koshy said that he had intended to give the tenant notice prior to Mr Grace’s attendance but failed to do so and he apologised to the tenant. He said that he instructed the plumber to attend on the second occasion as he considered the situation to be urgent.

I do not consider that there has been a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment because: a. It is reasonable for a landlord to attend at the property to do repairs or undertake maintenance investigations as long as they do so in accordance with the provisions of section 48 RTA; b. There is nothing to stop a landlord from knocking on the door and asking to do repairs, whether or not notice has been given. If the tenant consents then there has been no breach (see section 48(1)(a) RTA). c. The plumber who attended did not in fact enter.

The tenant’s claim for compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment is therefore dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression

Because [The applicant/s] has succeeded in her claim for compensation for failure to repair and maintain I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The tenant sought an order for name suppression. I consider that she is entitled to an order, as she has substantially succeeded in her claim for compensation. See section 95A RTA.

The landlord did not seek an order for name suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5229933 — net $728.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Advertising costs (ordered by consent	$399.00		Advertising costs (ordered by consent
Compensation for loss of amenity and stress		$1,100.00	Compensation for loss of amenity and stress
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$399.00	$1,127.00
Net award		$728.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$728.00