Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5300864 — Leaks
Decided 18 February 2026 · Published 18 February 2026 · Application 5300864
Dismissed
- Leaks
- State of repair
- Healthy homes
- Exemplary damages
- Unit Titles
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Dismissed
From published order
Adjudicator
C Boys
Dispute themes
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| e slip rule, to correct an error in calculation at paragraphs [1] and [14]. C Boys 16/9/2025 ORDER 1. The landlord is to | $2,272.63 | e slip rule, to correct an error in calculation at paragraphs [1] and [14]. C Boys 16/9/2025 ORDER 1. The landlord is to |
Claims and awards for application 5300864. Verify on MoJ.
e slip rule, to correct an error in calculation at paragraphs [1] and [14]. C Boys 16/9/2025 ORDER 1. The landlord is to
- Amount
- $2,272.63
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- e slip rule, to correct an error in calculation at paragraphs [1] and [14]. C Boys 16/9/2025 ORDER 1. The landlord is to
Order
is corrected under the slip rule, to correct an error in calculation at paragraphs [1] and [14]. C Boys 16/9/2025
ORDER
- The landlord is to pay the tenants $2,272.63 immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The relevant background of this matter is as follows: a. The tenancy is in an historical, brickwork, industrial building which was converted to apartments in the 1990s or early 2000’s; b. the apartment complex is administered through a body corporate established under the Unit Titles Act; c. as is common with such buildings in [City] the apartment complex has been deemed to be earthquake prone and is subject to a yellow sticker warning; 1 d. the tenancy began on 6 December 2024, on a one-year fixed term, and ends on 7 December 2025; 1 A yellow sticker indicates a risk assessment which allows for the building to be used but sets conditions around when strengthening work must be completed. In this case the notice indicates strengthening before 31/1/2023. It is unknown whether an exemption has been applied for. e. on New Year’s Day 2025, the tenants noticed water seeping down walls in the corner of the master bedroom from a leak, the landlord was notified of this on 3 January 2025; f. the leak was investigated by the body corporate on 10 January 2025, g. on 29 January 2025 some remedial work was conducted, however the seepage continues to this day and has since worsened; h. following discussions between the parties from 14 March 2025 the rent was reduced by $51.19 a week, based on the cost of running a dehumidifier and the loss of usable space in the bedroom, and this was backdated to the start of the lease; 2 i. on 21 May 2025, the tenants issued a 14-day notice to remedy which, amongst other things, raised - the lack of a healthy homes compliance statement in the lease, and the ongoing leak in the master bedroom; j. it appears that further investigations were carried out, judging by the discussions the tenants had with the property manager in June 2025; and k. on 6 June 2025, the tenants raised the issue of the expiry of the yellow sticker, the landlord’s response is that the issue had been raised with the Body Corporate, but no response had been received.
- As I understand it, subsequently the parties have engaged in correspondence and negotiations. There has been an offer for the reduction of rent, and discussions about breaking the fixed term lease, however the dispute remains unconcluded.
- The tenants have brought an application seeking remedies for: a. the loss of amenity caused by the leak, including alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligation to maintain premises; b. alleged nondisclosure that the apartment complex is earthquake prone, and is non-compliant with yellow sticker; and c. a breach of the healthy homes requirements with regards to the adequacy of a heat source.
- The tenants also alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligation to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state, however these have been settled. The leak
- The leak occurs in the corner of the bedroom on an external wall around a window. The source of the leak is unknown. Photos of the area show that the leak is coming from the floor above. Water has damaged the ceiling and the 2 this figure was proposed by the tenants on 5 March 2025. cornice, has caused rust on structural members, seeps down brickwork, and drips from the edge of the cornice onto the floor. Initially the leak affected a reasonably small area in the corner. However, it has worsened and now affects an area which runs approximately 3 m down the external wall, past the window, and approximately 1 m along the internal wall running from the corner. The frequency of the leak has also worsened, initially it occurred during or following rain, but is now almost continuous. The bucket which catches drips is a permanent fixture.
- [The tenant/s] say that the leak has reduced the amenity of their tenancy, by preventing them from using part of the area in the main bedroom, and they claim that the landlord has breached the obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. They seek $10,400 damages, and a work order requiring the tenant to repair the leak.
- The damages are calculated as a rent reduction of $400 a week, until the repairs are conducted, backdated to 1 January 2025 to the date of the application. An additional eight weeks has passed since then.
- [The tenant/s] describes the figure of $400 a week as being a global figure which captures all the issues raised. The landlord’s representative says that the loss of amenity is captured in the existing rent reduction of $51.19 a week.
- I note that: a. the leak has caused a real loss of amenity and now affects an area of 3- 4m 2 of a total tenancy floor area of 207 m 2 ; b. the leak is not an “clean” leak, rather water enters as seepage, and is visibly stained by tannins or similar, [The tenant/s] reports that the water is sticky and leaves a residue; c. the affects the master bedroom, which is one of three bedrooms in the tenancy; d. the rent as set out in the lease is $1175 per week; e. the $51.19 reduction was proposed by the tenants, and the email in which was proposed included that it captured loss of amenity; and f. the leak has worsened from 14 March when the $51.19 reduction was agreed.
- The $400 per week claimed represents approximately one third of the rent. Had the leak rendered the bedroom entirely unusable such a figure could be justified. However, the bedroom remains in use. In situations such as this there is no black-and-white clear line to guide my considerations, rather I am guided by what is fair, informed by the evidence of the parties’ positions. Therefore, my starting point is that as of 5 March 2025 the tenants considered that the loss of amenity and additional power usage reduce their immunity by $51.19 per week. However, as [The tenant/s] pointed out, this was proposed on the basis of the leak affecting a small area and that it would soon be fixed. My impression is that since March the area affected by the leak has approximately trebled in size.
- While the area of the tenancy affected is only approximately 1.5 to 2% of the total floor area, the affected room is the master bedroom. The amenity value derived from a bedroom, where we spend the third of our time in our most vulnerable state, is higher than that of say a laundry, bathroom, or other service area. While a bedroom does not have the same sanitary requirements as a kitchen or bathroom area, nonetheless, a leak which leaves an unpleasant residue has a marked the effect on amenity.
- Using the $51.19 as a starting point I conclude that $150 a week is a fair reduction. I will not impose this reduction prior to 1 April 2025, as the parties had freely reached their own figure for the earlier period.
- 23 weeks has now passed since 1 April 2025, therefore I award the tenants $3450 for the loss of amenity they have suffered. This is adjusted by the $1177.37 of compensation under the agreement already in place, Healthy homes breaches
- The tenancy is heated by a gas central heating system. [The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS), specifically the HHS heating standard.
- The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
- The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
- The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
- Breaching HHS obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
- The specific allegation is that the gas heating, which is rated at 5.5kW, is insufficient to heat the open plan Lounge, kitchen area. This area is 80 m² and according to the healthy home report provided this area requires a 9.5kW heating source. However, the healthy home report states that compliance is exempt as body corporate rules do not allow the installation heat pump. Given the historic nature of the apartment complex, it is likely that the body corporate rules reflect the consent status under which the building was developed as apartments.
- I conclude that any breach of the healthy homes regulations is, based on the evidence, a technical breach at best. The landlord is able to rely on the healthy homes report, which provides that there is an exemption for the rating of the heat source. The landlord argued that the flue gas heating is effective at quickly raising and maintaining temperature in a way a heat pump is not. Even if this was not true, I cannot conclude that exemplary damages are justified in this situation. Earthquake compliance
- The tenants have alleged that the earthquake compliance status of the tenancy was misrepresented to them when the tenancy began. They refer to asking for information about the building’s earthquake status. In response to this on you 30 November 2024, an email was provided by the landlord which forwarded the following statement from the body corporate: The parapets and facade was strengthened several years ago to meet current earthquake standards. No other structural strengthening work has been done.
- However, since the work referred to by the body corporate was done, there has been a change in the engineering standards used to assess whether a building is earthquake prone. This is reflected by the current yellow sticker. This issue is compounded by the fact that there are currently two different protocols used for earthquake assessments; the so-called “blue book” and “yellow book”, although the standard itself has not changed. A building, such as in the present case, which was previously at an acceptable risk level, is now deemed unacceptable due to a change in methodology.
- In this instance the landlord has provided information given by the body corporate. The body corporate is the entity which owns and is legally responsible for the structural elements of the building. I do not find that the landlord has acted and intentionally misleading manner. Rather, the situation with regard to the assessment of earthquake risk of building such as this one is currently confused and uncertain. This aspect of the tenants’ claim is dismissed.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s09, s15, s16, s45(1), s45(1A), s80
Key findings
- Dispute theme: state of repair
- Dispute theme: healthy homes
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5300864?
The tribunal order states: The landlord is to pay the tenants $2,272.63 immediately.
How much money was awarded in case 5300864?
E Slip Rule, To Correct An Error In…: $2,272.63 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300864?
The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Unit Titles.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300864?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12876646-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.