What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5301780 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 5301780?

Compensation: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301780?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12537208-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5301780 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 5301780?

Compensation: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301780?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12537208-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5301780 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5301780 — net $328.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
riptionLandlordTenant Compensation for loss of amenity/time spent dealing with blocked kitchen sink/leak (landlord’s fai	$300.00	riptionLandlordTenant Compensation for loss of amenity/time spent dealing with blocked kitchen sink/leak (landlord’s fai
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$328.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$328.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Viaduct City Rentals Limited As Agent For Owen & Angela Dwyer must pay [The tenant/s] $328.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by his daughter who lives with him in the tenancy. The landlord was represented by Nicole Tran.
These claims relate to the tenancy situated in a large 15-storey apartment block in central Auckland. The tenancy apartment is situated on the 8 th floor. The tenancy began on 8 October 2022 and is ongoing. Rent is currently $480 per week.
Both parties have filed claims which relate to a leaking kitchen sink.
The landlord filed a claim on 8 July 2025 seeking compensation for repairs to the kitchen sink plumbing and for drying carpet following the leak. The landlord says that the tenant damaged the plumbing and caused the leak.
The tenant filed a claim on 18 July 2025 seeking compensation for loss of amenity and for the mental stress of having to deal with the blocked sink and leak. The tenant says that the landlord failed to respond to their request for maintenance. The claims
The landlord said in their application that the tenant had removed a pipe from under the kitchen sink to clear a blockage which had caused damage to the pipe, requiring repair, and led to flooding through into one of the bedrooms which required extensive drying.
The landlord produced the following invoices: a. Plumbing invoice for repairs to the pipe in the amount of $357.92 b. Carpet drying invoice in the amount of $2,432.25.
The landlord said that the landlord’s flooding excess was $5,000.00 and so it was not economical for them to claim against their insurance policy.
The landlord produced the email chain between the tenant and the property manager in which the tenant referred to having removed a pipe from under the sink and referred me to the narration in the plumber’s invoice for work completed on 18 June 2025 which stated: “Attended job at [Apartment]. Noticed water discharging from the air admittance valve, which, on initial inspection, had been installed too low – below the flood level – contrary to standard installation requirements. Disassembled the sink trap, drained residual water, and removed the failed air admittance valve. Sourced a replacement valve and necessary fittings from the supplier. Returned to site and removed the faulty valve, which was identified as a contributing factor to the slow drainage and a potential blockage. Installed the new air admittance valve at a compliant height – above the kitchen sink outlet – to meet current standards. Filled the sink and performed a forceful plunge to clear any historic buildup of grease, fat, or debris. Completed the work by thoroughly flushing the system with hot water”
The landlord said that the invoice confirmed that the tenant had reinstalled the pipe incorrectly and that there had been grease, fat and debris in the sink and that they are therefore responsible for the cost of fixing the sink and drying the carpet.
The tenant’s daughter said that they did not cause any damage. She said that the kitchen sink started draining slowly on Sunday 15 June and by Monday 16 June was getting worse so they stopped using the sink.
She said that they called the owner, Owen, who usually does repairs, but all calls went to voicemail. They then contacted their property manager, Bella Gang, but received an email stating that she was overseas and to call another property manager named Hamish. The tenant said that Hamish asked them to email him with details of the issue and he would get back to them. The parties then had the following email exchange on 16 June 2025: a. The tenant’s emailed Hamish and told him that the kitchen sink was blocked, they had removed the pipe from under the kitchen sink but couldn’t find a blockage, and had tried pouring hot water slowly down the sink but this didn’t work. b. Hamish then forwarded the tenant’s email to Ms Tran, who responded instructing the tenant’s not to remove pipes, that “maintaining drainage is your responsibility”, not to put any hard food items, hair or oil down the sink and to buy drain liquid to clear any blockage. c. The tenants responded to say that they had not put any of those things down the drains, they don’t have money to purchase drain liquid, they need someone to fix the blockage, they don’t think it is something they can fix with drain fluid, and are concerned about plunging as it may bring up a blockage from the neighbour’s pipes as they are all connected. d. The tenant then sent a further email expressing their frustration at being told by the building owner to call the owner, but they could not get of their usual property manager, and were now being told that the property manager could not help. e. Ms Tran responded by saying that “The instruction in the agreement is very clear”.
The tenant’s daughter said that they did in fact go and purchase drain liquid (they were advised to use crystals) but this did not appear to make any difference, and they also tried plunging which did not fix the issue either.
Then on the evening of 17 June 2025 they noticed that the carpet in the tenant’s bedroom was wet. They contacted the building manager urgently who arranged for the plumber to attend the next morning and for the carpet to be dried.
The tenant said that they are not responsible for any damage as the plumbing under the sink was installed correctly and there was a gradual build-up in the shared drainage system. He produced an email from plumber who attended confirming the position as follows:
The tenant produced the “before” photo from the plumber showing the air admittance valve installed very low, together with an “after” photo taken by the tenant showing the air admittance valve now installed considerably higher.
The tenant said that the situation was difficult and stressful as they were left on their own to deal with the blocked drain and then water in the bedroom, and that their use of the property was affected by carpet dryers for six days (although the area was dry after 3 days so they packed them up and stacked the in the lounge).
They say if the landlord had responded to their maintenance concerns in a timely manner the whole situation would have been avoided.
After reviewing the email from the plumber, the photos, and having heard from the tenant and his daughter, Ms Tran accepted that the tenant had not damaged the pipes and had not caused the flooding. She also accepted that much more damage might have occurred if the tenant had not contacted the building manager as soon as they noticed water in the bedroom.
Having accepted this however, Ms Tran changed her position to say that the tenant should have got back to the landlord to advise that the drain fluid had not worked and the drain was still blocked, so the landlord could arrange their own repairs.

Has the tenant caused damage?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage 1 .
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent) 2 . See section 49B(3)(b) RTA.
Where damage is intentional the tenant’s liability is not limited. Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does 1 See sections 40(2)(1), 41 and 49B RTA 2 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty 3 .
The evidence clearly shows that the tenant has not caused damage to the pipes that have then caused flooding. This was accepted by the landlord at the hearing.
The repair to the pipe at some stage was inevitable as it had not been installed correctly. It is clear that any build up in the pipe was due to normal wear and tear due to the shared drainage in the building.
I consider that the tenant has acted reasonably in calling the building manager once they discovered leaking into the bedroom, particularly as they could not get hold of the owner or their usual property manager, and had been told that drainage maintenance was their responsibility.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Has the landlord breached their obligations?

Section 45(1)(b) RTA provides that a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, taking into account the age and condition of the premises.
Tenant’s have a corresponding obligation under section 40(1)(d) to “notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises or the need for any repairs”.
Blocked sinks can be a difficult issue as they are sometimes the blockage is caused by the tenant putting things down the sink, but in other cases can indicate the need for maintenance and repairs.
In this case I consider that the landlord was under an obligation to send out a plumber to investigate the cause of the blocked sink on an urgent basis. I make this finding because: a. The tenant had already taken reasonable steps prior to contacting the landlord and advised that: i. They had removed the u-bend under the sink and could not find any blockage ii. They had tried pouring water slowly down the sink but this had not cleared the issue b. This was a very large, 15 storey, apartment complex with interconnected drainage.
The landlord’s failure to comply with their maintenance obligations meant that the tenant was left to deal with the issue themselves, which obviously caused 3 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541 considerable stress as both the tenant and his daughter have health issues, and they then had to deal with wet carpet and carpet drying equipment over the next six days.
I consider that the tenant is entitled to some compensation for loss of amenity during that period. I consider that the sum of $300.00 to be reasonable. This represents a reduction in rent of 50% over the period 16 June 2025 until the dryers were removed (total of 8 days) together with an additional amount to cover the tenant’s time in dealing with the building manager. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenant has been the substantially successful party and so I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant also sought an order for name suppression, and is entitled to an order as the substantially successful party pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5301780 — net $328.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
riptionLandlordTenant Compensation for loss of amenity/time spent dealing with blocked kitchen sink/leak (landlord’s fai	$300.00	riptionLandlordTenant Compensation for loss of amenity/time spent dealing with blocked kitchen sink/leak (landlord’s fai
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$328.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$328.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Viaduct City Rentals Limited As Agent For Owen & Angela Dwyer must pay [The tenant/s] $328.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by his daughter who lives with him in the tenancy. The landlord was represented by Nicole Tran.
These claims relate to the tenancy situated in a large 15-storey apartment block in central Auckland. The tenancy apartment is situated on the 8 th floor. The tenancy began on 8 October 2022 and is ongoing. Rent is currently $480 per week.
Both parties have filed claims which relate to a leaking kitchen sink.
The landlord filed a claim on 8 July 2025 seeking compensation for repairs to the kitchen sink plumbing and for drying carpet following the leak. The landlord says that the tenant damaged the plumbing and caused the leak.
The tenant filed a claim on 18 July 2025 seeking compensation for loss of amenity and for the mental stress of having to deal with the blocked sink and leak. The tenant says that the landlord failed to respond to their request for maintenance. The claims
The landlord said in their application that the tenant had removed a pipe from under the kitchen sink to clear a blockage which had caused damage to the pipe, requiring repair, and led to flooding through into one of the bedrooms which required extensive drying.
The landlord produced the following invoices: a. Plumbing invoice for repairs to the pipe in the amount of $357.92 b. Carpet drying invoice in the amount of $2,432.25.
The landlord said that the landlord’s flooding excess was $5,000.00 and so it was not economical for them to claim against their insurance policy.
The landlord produced the email chain between the tenant and the property manager in which the tenant referred to having removed a pipe from under the sink and referred me to the narration in the plumber’s invoice for work completed on 18 June 2025 which stated: “Attended job at [Apartment]. Noticed water discharging from the air admittance valve, which, on initial inspection, had been installed too low – below the flood level – contrary to standard installation requirements. Disassembled the sink trap, drained residual water, and removed the failed air admittance valve. Sourced a replacement valve and necessary fittings from the supplier. Returned to site and removed the faulty valve, which was identified as a contributing factor to the slow drainage and a potential blockage. Installed the new air admittance valve at a compliant height – above the kitchen sink outlet – to meet current standards. Filled the sink and performed a forceful plunge to clear any historic buildup of grease, fat, or debris. Completed the work by thoroughly flushing the system with hot water”
The landlord said that the invoice confirmed that the tenant had reinstalled the pipe incorrectly and that there had been grease, fat and debris in the sink and that they are therefore responsible for the cost of fixing the sink and drying the carpet.
The tenant’s daughter said that they did not cause any damage. She said that the kitchen sink started draining slowly on Sunday 15 June and by Monday 16 June was getting worse so they stopped using the sink.
She said that they called the owner, Owen, who usually does repairs, but all calls went to voicemail. They then contacted their property manager, Bella Gang, but received an email stating that she was overseas and to call another property manager named Hamish. The tenant said that Hamish asked them to email him with details of the issue and he would get back to them. The parties then had the following email exchange on 16 June 2025: a. The tenant’s emailed Hamish and told him that the kitchen sink was blocked, they had removed the pipe from under the kitchen sink but couldn’t find a blockage, and had tried pouring hot water slowly down the sink but this didn’t work. b. Hamish then forwarded the tenant’s email to Ms Tran, who responded instructing the tenant’s not to remove pipes, that “maintaining drainage is your responsibility”, not to put any hard food items, hair or oil down the sink and to buy drain liquid to clear any blockage. c. The tenants responded to say that they had not put any of those things down the drains, they don’t have money to purchase drain liquid, they need someone to fix the blockage, they don’t think it is something they can fix with drain fluid, and are concerned about plunging as it may bring up a blockage from the neighbour’s pipes as they are all connected. d. The tenant then sent a further email expressing their frustration at being told by the building owner to call the owner, but they could not get of their usual property manager, and were now being told that the property manager could not help. e. Ms Tran responded by saying that “The instruction in the agreement is very clear”.
The tenant’s daughter said that they did in fact go and purchase drain liquid (they were advised to use crystals) but this did not appear to make any difference, and they also tried plunging which did not fix the issue either.
Then on the evening of 17 June 2025 they noticed that the carpet in the tenant’s bedroom was wet. They contacted the building manager urgently who arranged for the plumber to attend the next morning and for the carpet to be dried.
The tenant said that they are not responsible for any damage as the plumbing under the sink was installed correctly and there was a gradual build-up in the shared drainage system. He produced an email from plumber who attended confirming the position as follows:
The tenant produced the “before” photo from the plumber showing the air admittance valve installed very low, together with an “after” photo taken by the tenant showing the air admittance valve now installed considerably higher.
The tenant said that the situation was difficult and stressful as they were left on their own to deal with the blocked drain and then water in the bedroom, and that their use of the property was affected by carpet dryers for six days (although the area was dry after 3 days so they packed them up and stacked the in the lounge).
They say if the landlord had responded to their maintenance concerns in a timely manner the whole situation would have been avoided.
After reviewing the email from the plumber, the photos, and having heard from the tenant and his daughter, Ms Tran accepted that the tenant had not damaged the pipes and had not caused the flooding. She also accepted that much more damage might have occurred if the tenant had not contacted the building manager as soon as they noticed water in the bedroom.
Having accepted this however, Ms Tran changed her position to say that the tenant should have got back to the landlord to advise that the drain fluid had not worked and the drain was still blocked, so the landlord could arrange their own repairs.

Has the tenant caused damage?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage 1 .
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent) 2 . See section 49B(3)(b) RTA.
Where damage is intentional the tenant’s liability is not limited. Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does 1 See sections 40(2)(1), 41 and 49B RTA 2 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty 3 .
The evidence clearly shows that the tenant has not caused damage to the pipes that have then caused flooding. This was accepted by the landlord at the hearing.
The repair to the pipe at some stage was inevitable as it had not been installed correctly. It is clear that any build up in the pipe was due to normal wear and tear due to the shared drainage in the building.
I consider that the tenant has acted reasonably in calling the building manager once they discovered leaking into the bedroom, particularly as they could not get hold of the owner or their usual property manager, and had been told that drainage maintenance was their responsibility.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Has the landlord breached their obligations?

Section 45(1)(b) RTA provides that a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, taking into account the age and condition of the premises.
Tenant’s have a corresponding obligation under section 40(1)(d) to “notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises or the need for any repairs”.
Blocked sinks can be a difficult issue as they are sometimes the blockage is caused by the tenant putting things down the sink, but in other cases can indicate the need for maintenance and repairs.
In this case I consider that the landlord was under an obligation to send out a plumber to investigate the cause of the blocked sink on an urgent basis. I make this finding because: a. The tenant had already taken reasonable steps prior to contacting the landlord and advised that: i. They had removed the u-bend under the sink and could not find any blockage ii. They had tried pouring water slowly down the sink but this had not cleared the issue b. This was a very large, 15 storey, apartment complex with interconnected drainage.
The landlord’s failure to comply with their maintenance obligations meant that the tenant was left to deal with the issue themselves, which obviously caused 3 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541 considerable stress as both the tenant and his daughter have health issues, and they then had to deal with wet carpet and carpet drying equipment over the next six days.
I consider that the tenant is entitled to some compensation for loss of amenity during that period. I consider that the sum of $300.00 to be reasonable. This represents a reduction in rent of 50% over the period 16 June 2025 until the dryers were removed (total of 8 days) together with an additional amount to cover the tenant’s time in dealing with the building manager. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenant has been the substantially successful party and so I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant also sought an order for name suppression, and is entitled to an order as the substantially successful party pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301780 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301780 — Leaks

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant caused damage?

Has the landlord breached their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant caused damage?

Has the landlord breached their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions