What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5313101 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5313101?

Heat Pump Underpowered: $2,370.48 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,917.85 awarded to landlord; Water Pump For Rainwater Not Working: $305.71 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $213.17 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313101?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5313101?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12792423-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5313101 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5313101?

Heat Pump Underpowered: $2,370.48 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,917.85 awarded to landlord; Water Pump For Rainwater Not Working: $305.71 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $213.17 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313101?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5313101?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12792423-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

[Street address], Hobsonville, Auckland 0616 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5313101 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5313101 — net $545.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,917.85		Rent arrears
Water rates	$213.17		Water rates
Heat pump underpowered		$2,370.48	Heat pump underpowered
Water pump for rainwater not working		$305.71	Water pump for rainwater not working
Total award	$2,131.02	$2,676.19
Net award		$545.17
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$545.17

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address must not be published.
The Tribunal directs the Bond Centre to return the bond to the tenants.
Corporate Property Rentals Limited as agent for The Gulf Trust must pay [the tenants] $545.17 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The tenants both attended in person.
[The property manager’s employees] attended for the landlord.
The tenants claim the premises heat pump was underpowered, a water pump for non- potable water was out of service, and that the landlord’s contractor unlawfully entered the premises.
The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears, and compensation for kitchen water damage. Background
The tenancy began on 30 April 2022 and ended on 7 July 2025.
The premises is a terraced unit. It was newly built shortly before the tenancy began.
On 28 October 2022, the property manager emailed the tenants to switch off the water pump that pumped water from a rainwater reservoir due to a “major fault with the water flow into your property”. Consequently, the tenants could not use the collected rainwater for clothes washing, toilet flushing and the like, and had to use metered water, which carried a cost. The landlord fixed the problem on about 8 April 2024.
On 7 May 2025, one of the landlord’s contractors went to the premises to do some repairs. Finding no one was home, he telephoned one of the tenants to ask if he could enter. The tenant says she did not give her consent, but the contractor entered anyway.
The tenants found the unit cold and damp in winter. Towards the end of the tenancy, the tenants found out that the heat pump did not have the necessary kilowatts to adequately heat the living area.
The issues for determination are: a. Did the landlord meet the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) for heating? b. Should the landlord compensate the tenants for the water pump problem? c.Did the landlord’s agent unlawfully enter the premises? d. What is owed for rent and water? e. Are the tenants liable for a kitchen water leak?

Did the landlord breach the HHS for heating?

The tenants say they found the house cold and damp. A family member whose work involved HHS compliance advised them that their heat pump was underpowered by reference to the standards. The unit’s heat pump had only 3.60 kilowatts of heating capacity. However, the standard required a qualifying heater capable of approximately
0 kilowatts heating capacity. Legal principles
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), requires that landlords comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. In this case, the landlord had 120 days to comply. However, the landlord represented to the tenants that the unit fully complied. Therefore, compliance was a term of the tenancy agreement, and the landlord was contractually bound to comply with the standard from the beginning of the tenancy. Discussion
The landlord accepts the heat pump was underpowered. It explains that its heat pump contractor installed the incorrect heat pumps in this unit and several others. When it found out about the issue, it promptly remedied it.
The tenants claim is proven. For remedy, the tenants seek compensation. I accept the unit was liable to be colder than it would otherwise have been in the winter months and their power costs were probably higher than they would otherwise have been due to having to use plug-in heaters.
I consider that compensation in the order of 3 per cent per week during the cooler months of April through to September is appropriate.
The Tribunal orders the landlord to pay the tenants $2,370.48.

Should the landlord compensate the tenants for the water pump problem?

The landlord accepts that the water pump that provided the tenants with rainwater was out of service for the period alleged. For the same reasons as set out in respect to the heat pump, the landlords are liable to compensate the tenants for the loss of amenity during the period that the tenants could not use the rainwater.
Having reviewed the tenants’ water invoices, I calculate their financial cost of having to pay for additional water due to the water pump not working to be about $4.00 per week.
The Tribunal orders the landlord to reimburse the tenants $305.71. Did the landlord’s agent unlawfully enter the premises?
The tenants claim the landlord’s contractor - who had been a project manager in the development of the terraced unit block including the unit - entered the premises without consent or notice at about 12:15pm on 7 May 2025.
Landlords must not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. 1
Breaching this obligation intentionally is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 2
At about 12:10 that day, the landlord’s contractor, MJ, telephoned one of the tenants to say that he was outside the unit and asked if he could enter the unit to do some routine repairs.
The tenant says she was out with the couple’s two young children when she got MJ’s call. She was caught off-guard and told him that she was not comfortable with him entering the unit. However, MJ pressured her to give consent. At one point, she said “Okay” not to convey consent but to convey the sense: okay, you insist on pressuring me, which is not okay.
The tenant texted MJ at 12:15pm to confirm that she did not want him to go into the unit. However, before then MJ entered the unit and did some of the intended repair work. He ceased the repairs and left the premises after noticing the tenant’s 12:15pm text and texted the tenant back at 12:29pm: Sorry...just got your text when I came out for the deck part...I’ll leave now and come back another time that works...
The tenants were very upset by the entry. They say: [T]he property manager apologised and said she would call MJ but this really rattled our feeling of "this was our home" and prompted us to start looking for a new house. 1 See s 48(1) and (2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 2 RTA s 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A.
The landlord called MJ to give evidence in the Tribunal. He said he honestly believed the tenant had consented to his entry. He denied pressuring the tenant. He said that he did minor maintenance work himself because he enjoyed doing hands-on work as a break from his usual intense project development work. He was never particularly concerned about getting into units in the development immediately, partly because he charged for the work by the hour, so it did not affect him personally if he had to return on a later date. He mentioned poor cell phone reception was often a factor when using cell phones in Hobsonville which suggests there could have been room for miscommunication. He also said that he had previously knocked on the tenants’ door without notice in similar circumstances and communications had been friendly and access had not been an issue.
The fact the tenant texted MJ shortly after the phone conversation suggests that the tenant was equivocal that she had refused consent. Having heard oral evidence and viewed the text messages, I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did not convey consent to MJ during the telephone call. It follows, I am not satisfied that MJ’s entry was unlawful.
I do not find this claim proven. It is dismissed.

What is owed for rent and water?

The tenants do not dispute the landlord’s calculation of rent and water arrears set out in the table above.’
They are allocated to the tenants.

Are the tenants liable for a kitchen water leak?

The kitchen suffered significant water damage. The landlord’s insurer covered the damage, but the landlord still had to pay the excess.
The tenants accept that water ingress damaged the kitchen but deny the damage was due to a one-off flood/leaking event. Rather, they believe the water damage was caused by a gradual leak that they were unaware of. However, when they noticed damage to the kitchen cabinetry more than ordinary wear and tear, they immediately told the landlord about it. Legal principles
To succeed in a damage claim, landlords 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, tenants must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 3 Discussion
The landlord relies on a comment by a cabinet maker dated 23 July 2025: Water damage & Carcase replacement, due to an excess of water. The Melteca panels have cracked the top layer of the Melteca overlay, which in my opinion with 40 years experience can only have come from a large amount of water. I do not think a slow leak would have caused this kind of damage. The cracks extend from the floor to approx. 300mm above the floor line.
The cabinet maker did not attend to give evidence. That being so, the evidence is hearsay and can be given limited weight.
I found the tenants’ evidence that there was not a major leaking event but that they noticed damage which they promptly reported, plausible.
I have reviewed the photographs of the damage, and they are consistent with gradual damage caused by a latent defect. The cause of the leak – gradual or sudden – has not been established.
The tenants looked after the premises. During the course of the tenancy, they did not cause any other damage beyond ordinary wear and tear. That supplies circumstantial evidence supporting that they did not carelessly cause this damage either.
The tenants have proven on the balance of probabilities that they did not carelessly cause the leak damage.
This claim is dismissed. Bond
The Bond Centre is to return the bond to the tenants. 3 RTA ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B. Non-publication
The parties seek non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Both parties have substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or justified because of the parties’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
It follows, the parties’ applications for non-publication are allowed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5313101 — net $545.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,917.85		Rent arrears
Water rates	$213.17		Water rates
Heat pump underpowered		$2,370.48	Heat pump underpowered
Water pump for rainwater not working		$305.71	Water pump for rainwater not working
Total award	$2,131.02	$2,676.19
Net award		$545.17
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$545.17

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address must not be published.
The Tribunal directs the Bond Centre to return the bond to the tenants.
Corporate Property Rentals Limited as agent for The Gulf Trust must pay [the tenants] $545.17 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The tenants both attended in person.
[The property manager’s employees] attended for the landlord.
The tenants claim the premises heat pump was underpowered, a water pump for non- potable water was out of service, and that the landlord’s contractor unlawfully entered the premises.
The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears, and compensation for kitchen water damage. Background
The tenancy began on 30 April 2022 and ended on 7 July 2025.
The premises is a terraced unit. It was newly built shortly before the tenancy began.
On 28 October 2022, the property manager emailed the tenants to switch off the water pump that pumped water from a rainwater reservoir due to a “major fault with the water flow into your property”. Consequently, the tenants could not use the collected rainwater for clothes washing, toilet flushing and the like, and had to use metered water, which carried a cost. The landlord fixed the problem on about 8 April 2024.
On 7 May 2025, one of the landlord’s contractors went to the premises to do some repairs. Finding no one was home, he telephoned one of the tenants to ask if he could enter. The tenant says she did not give her consent, but the contractor entered anyway.
The tenants found the unit cold and damp in winter. Towards the end of the tenancy, the tenants found out that the heat pump did not have the necessary kilowatts to adequately heat the living area.
The issues for determination are: a. Did the landlord meet the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) for heating? b. Should the landlord compensate the tenants for the water pump problem? c.Did the landlord’s agent unlawfully enter the premises? d. What is owed for rent and water? e. Are the tenants liable for a kitchen water leak?

Did the landlord breach the HHS for heating?

The tenants say they found the house cold and damp. A family member whose work involved HHS compliance advised them that their heat pump was underpowered by reference to the standards. The unit’s heat pump had only 3.60 kilowatts of heating capacity. However, the standard required a qualifying heater capable of approximately
0 kilowatts heating capacity. Legal principles
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), requires that landlords comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. In this case, the landlord had 120 days to comply. However, the landlord represented to the tenants that the unit fully complied. Therefore, compliance was a term of the tenancy agreement, and the landlord was contractually bound to comply with the standard from the beginning of the tenancy. Discussion
The landlord accepts the heat pump was underpowered. It explains that its heat pump contractor installed the incorrect heat pumps in this unit and several others. When it found out about the issue, it promptly remedied it.
The tenants claim is proven. For remedy, the tenants seek compensation. I accept the unit was liable to be colder than it would otherwise have been in the winter months and their power costs were probably higher than they would otherwise have been due to having to use plug-in heaters.
I consider that compensation in the order of 3 per cent per week during the cooler months of April through to September is appropriate.
The Tribunal orders the landlord to pay the tenants $2,370.48.

Should the landlord compensate the tenants for the water pump problem?

The landlord accepts that the water pump that provided the tenants with rainwater was out of service for the period alleged. For the same reasons as set out in respect to the heat pump, the landlords are liable to compensate the tenants for the loss of amenity during the period that the tenants could not use the rainwater.
Having reviewed the tenants’ water invoices, I calculate their financial cost of having to pay for additional water due to the water pump not working to be about $4.00 per week.
The Tribunal orders the landlord to reimburse the tenants $305.71. Did the landlord’s agent unlawfully enter the premises?
The tenants claim the landlord’s contractor - who had been a project manager in the development of the terraced unit block including the unit - entered the premises without consent or notice at about 12:15pm on 7 May 2025.
Landlords must not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. 1
Breaching this obligation intentionally is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 2
At about 12:10 that day, the landlord’s contractor, MJ, telephoned one of the tenants to say that he was outside the unit and asked if he could enter the unit to do some routine repairs.
The tenant says she was out with the couple’s two young children when she got MJ’s call. She was caught off-guard and told him that she was not comfortable with him entering the unit. However, MJ pressured her to give consent. At one point, she said “Okay” not to convey consent but to convey the sense: okay, you insist on pressuring me, which is not okay.
The tenant texted MJ at 12:15pm to confirm that she did not want him to go into the unit. However, before then MJ entered the unit and did some of the intended repair work. He ceased the repairs and left the premises after noticing the tenant’s 12:15pm text and texted the tenant back at 12:29pm: Sorry...just got your text when I came out for the deck part...I’ll leave now and come back another time that works...
The tenants were very upset by the entry. They say: [T]he property manager apologised and said she would call MJ but this really rattled our feeling of "this was our home" and prompted us to start looking for a new house. 1 See s 48(1) and (2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 2 RTA s 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A.
The landlord called MJ to give evidence in the Tribunal. He said he honestly believed the tenant had consented to his entry. He denied pressuring the tenant. He said that he did minor maintenance work himself because he enjoyed doing hands-on work as a break from his usual intense project development work. He was never particularly concerned about getting into units in the development immediately, partly because he charged for the work by the hour, so it did not affect him personally if he had to return on a later date. He mentioned poor cell phone reception was often a factor when using cell phones in Hobsonville which suggests there could have been room for miscommunication. He also said that he had previously knocked on the tenants’ door without notice in similar circumstances and communications had been friendly and access had not been an issue.
The fact the tenant texted MJ shortly after the phone conversation suggests that the tenant was equivocal that she had refused consent. Having heard oral evidence and viewed the text messages, I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did not convey consent to MJ during the telephone call. It follows, I am not satisfied that MJ’s entry was unlawful.
I do not find this claim proven. It is dismissed.

What is owed for rent and water?

The tenants do not dispute the landlord’s calculation of rent and water arrears set out in the table above.’
They are allocated to the tenants.

Are the tenants liable for a kitchen water leak?

The kitchen suffered significant water damage. The landlord’s insurer covered the damage, but the landlord still had to pay the excess.
The tenants accept that water ingress damaged the kitchen but deny the damage was due to a one-off flood/leaking event. Rather, they believe the water damage was caused by a gradual leak that they were unaware of. However, when they noticed damage to the kitchen cabinetry more than ordinary wear and tear, they immediately told the landlord about it. Legal principles
To succeed in a damage claim, landlords 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, tenants must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 3 Discussion
The landlord relies on a comment by a cabinet maker dated 23 July 2025: Water damage & Carcase replacement, due to an excess of water. The Melteca panels have cracked the top layer of the Melteca overlay, which in my opinion with 40 years experience can only have come from a large amount of water. I do not think a slow leak would have caused this kind of damage. The cracks extend from the floor to approx. 300mm above the floor line.
The cabinet maker did not attend to give evidence. That being so, the evidence is hearsay and can be given limited weight.
I found the tenants’ evidence that there was not a major leaking event but that they noticed damage which they promptly reported, plausible.
I have reviewed the photographs of the damage, and they are consistent with gradual damage caused by a latent defect. The cause of the leak – gradual or sudden – has not been established.
The tenants looked after the premises. During the course of the tenancy, they did not cause any other damage beyond ordinary wear and tear. That supplies circumstantial evidence supporting that they did not carelessly cause this damage either.
The tenants have proven on the balance of probabilities that they did not carelessly cause the leak damage.
This claim is dismissed. Bond
The Bond Centre is to return the bond to the tenants. 3 RTA ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B. Non-publication
The parties seek non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Both parties have substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or justified because of the parties’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
It follows, the parties’ applications for non-publication are allowed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313101 — State of repair at [Street address], Hobsonville, Auckland 0616

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313101 — State of repair at [Street address], Hobsonville, Auckland 0616

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach the HHS for heating?

Should the landlord compensate the tenants for the water pump problem?

What is owed for rent and water?

Are the tenants liable for a kitchen water leak?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach the HHS for heating?

Should the landlord compensate the tenants for the water pump problem?

What is owed for rent and water?

Are the tenants liable for a kitchen water leak?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions