Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5277839 — Leaks at Unit/Flat Unit 43, 130 Great South Road, Epsom, Auckland
Decided 22 Oct 2025 · Published 22 Oct 2025 · Application 5277839
- Leaks
- State of repair
- Exemplary damages
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 Tenant name and identifying details.
- Barfoot and Thompson Limited as agent for Kim, Hae Jin is to pay Hong Chang and Yunli Wang immediately, the sum of $227.00 for compensation and reimbursement of filing fee, as calculated and set out below:
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- This is a tenant application which states that the tenants are seeking a work order, compensation for loss of utilities and exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
- The tenancy commenced on 16 May 2025 and is a 12-month fixed term tenancy. At the start of the tenancy the tenant contacted the landlord claiming there were issues with one of the stove top elements, range hood, cupboard door, dishwasher, toilet seat, waste disposal unit, door locks and a bad smell in the lower bathroom.
- The property manager arranged a meeting at the property to go through the issues with the tenant. The landlord sent electricians, plumbers, and a handyman to the property to fix issues. The landlord advised that the dishwasher did not have hot water flowing into the unit and was replaced on 10 July 2025.
- The waste disposal unit is working adequately but has lost some of the rubber around the top which cannot be replaced as there are no replacement flanges available due to the age of the unit.
- The stove top had four elements but only one was not working properly. The stove top was repaired within days of it being brought to the landlord’s notice. There were no issues with the range hood and the kitchen cupboard and toilet seat required screwing down tighter.
- The tenant talked about a bad sewer smell in the downstairs bathroom, which she said permeated throughout the property. The landlord sent a plumber to the property, and they advised that the smell was due to the property being vacate for 3-4 weeks and stagnant water sitting in the water pipes. The remedy was to let water run through the pipes.
- The tenant continued to make complaints about the smell. Subsequently another plumber was at the property fixing a water leak in the upstairs bathroom. He investigated the smell and found that the tenant had removed internal components that are intended to form a seal for the trap in the shower. These internal components were deemed “critical” by the plumber to stop smells coming from the drains. The tenant had removed these items and left them sitting in the shower unit. Once the components were replaced, the smell disappeared and there is no longer an issue with sewer smells.
- There was a dispute between the tenant and landlord regarding the “broken” locks on the doors, which the tenant claimed was a serious safety and security issue. However, one “door” that the tenant talked about was the gate into the courtyard and not an external door. The other door was off the balcony. The tenant said it was faulty and fixed. The landlord said the door lock mechanism was checked by their maintenance person and there were no issues with it. At no point have the locks been replaced during this tenancy.
- The only issue remaining is the missing rubber piece in the waste disposal unit which does not hinder the use of the unit. The waste disposal unit is in good working order and the landlord is reluctant to replace the unit when it is serviceable and doing the job.
- As a result of the work that has been conducted, the tenant no longer seeks a work order nor termination of the tenancy from the Tribunal.
- The tenant seeks compensation for the loss of utilities, for stress, health issues and inconvenience, exemplary damages for the landlord failing to provide her with a property in good repair, failing to disclosure the issues with the property and failing to fix the maintenance problems within a reasonable time frame.
- The tenant stated that she wants a weekly rent reduction of $300 from 15 May to 10 July 2025.
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 mean 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.
- 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.
- In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
- The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary Damages
- The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach.
- Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.
- Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?
- [The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- 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 landlord provided the entry inspection report to the Tribunal and detailed emails between the tenant and the property manager regarding maintenance issues with the property.
- The tenant stated that she believed the landlord knew of preexisting conditions with the property but did not disclose them to her. The landlord denies knowledge of minor maintenance issues prior to being advised of them by the tenant.
- I find that the landlord has complied with their obligations to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. This is a property that is 25 years old and so it is likely that the original appliances would be coming to the end of their usefulness and need to be replaced. However, the landlord said this is a well maintained town house and in good order.
- The tenant stated in the hearing that she believes the landlord intentionally delayed fixing the dishwasher and the smell problem in the shower.
- I also find that as soon as issues were raised with the property manager, appropriate action was taken to remedy the problems, by meeting and discussing issues with the tenants, advising the owners, and arranging service people to attend. No evidence has been provided to the Tribunal to support the tenants claim that the landlord did not fix and repair the property and did not do so in a timely manner. I do not find they have committed an unlawful act.
- I accept that the tenant did not have the use of the dishwasher for 8 weeks and she should be compensated for that loss. The landlord agrees that a small award for the loss of utility for the dishwasher is appropriate. I am awarding $25.00per week for 8 weeks to compensate the tenant for the loss of the dishwasher.
- I cannot accept that the tenant should receive financial compensation for stress and inconvenience. Unfortunately, it is part of life that things get broken or old and need attention, requiring additional effort for the tenant to be available for service people and property managers. There is no evidence provided to suggest that the tenants health has been affected by the smell in the house, despite that statement in her submissions.
- For completeness I am dismissing the tenants claims but awarding a nominal amount for the loss of the dishwasher for 8 weeks.
- Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
- The tenants have sought suppression of their name and details and as they have to a small degree been successful, I am awarding suppression.