What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5315900 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 5315900?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5315900?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5315900?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12618996-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5315900 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 5315900?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5315900?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5315900?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12618996-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

768 River Road, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5315900 — 14-day notice

Order

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

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant on 1 August 2025 seeking refund of the bond, compensation, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee. At the hearing, the tenant stated that he no longer sought a refund of the bond as this had occurred.
The tenant appeared at the hearing and was supported by Mrs Mattner.
[Branch Manager], Branch Manager, and [Property Manager], Property Manager, appeared for the landlord.
The tenancy commenced on 30 April 2024 and was periodic.
On 15 July 2025, the landlord terminated the tenancy by serving a 90-day notice advising the tenants that the property was scheduled to be redeveloped.
On 25 July 2025, the tenant’s sought to terminate the tenancy with immediate effect. Following a negotiation between the parties the landlord agreed to early termination of the tenancy and did not require the tenants to give 21 days’ notice as required by section 51(2A) of the Residential tenancies Act 1986. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations: a. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means 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. b. 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. c. 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.
Both parties provided documentary evidence and gave oral evidence and made submissions. The Tribunal has considered everything placed before it even if it is not specifically referred to. Exemplary damages
The Tribunal must consider a claim for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA. Blocked stormwater drains on the driveway Tenant’s evidence
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages for failing to maintain the driveway’s storm water drains. The tenant said the storm water drains were blocked, and during periods of heavy rain they over flowed, flooding the driveway allowing water to enter the basement which resulted in an unpleasant smell.
The tenant stated that in the first week after moving into the property it rained heavily and the driveway flooded as the stormwater drains were blocked. The tenant said he called his landlord to report the problem, but no action was taken.
The tenant produced an e-mail dated 25 July 2024 asking the landlord to attend to the drainage problem urgently. The tenant said there was no response to this e-mail.
The tenant produced a second email dated 30 July 2024. In that e-mail the tenant asks the landlord to clean the blocked drains, and said that if it were not attended to urgently then the complaint would be taken further. Two minutes later the tenant followed up his message with an additional comment saying, “the blocked drain really stinks so it needs to be fixed asap.”
The tenant claims the landlord took no action to remedy the problem. He further stated that a contractor who attended the property to investigate the issue, told him the drainage system required significant remediation work.
The tenant produced photographs dated 19 August 2024 which showed water pooling on the driveway, but could not confirm if they had been sent to the landlord.
The tenant claimed that between July 2024 and 12 July 2025 he continued to contact the landlord by telephone complaining about the blocked drains and the smell, but no action was taken.
On 12 July 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord with the following issues: a. The bedroom ceiling leaks during periods of heavy rain, wetting the carpet which caused an unpleasant odour. b. The bathroom ceiling leaks during periods of heavy rain. c. The driveway flooded during heavy rain, causing water to enter the garage resulting in an unpleasant odour. d. Ongoing issues with blocked drains causing water to back up into the bathroom. The tenant attached photographs to the e-mail showing water pooling on the driveway and an area of wet carpet in the bedroom.
The tenant states that the landlord attempted to contact him in response to his e-mail. However, he never returned the landlord’s call, and the issues were not discussed further. The tenant stated that he then received a 90-day notice terminating the tenancy, and as a result he vacated the property on 25 July 2025. Landlord’s evidence
The landlord denies failing to remedy the blocked drains in breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
The landlord said that on 1 May 2024 they received a telephone call from the tenant complaining that the downstairs toilet was blocked and immediately raised a job with a contractor to attend and investigate. The landlord said the issue effected the downstairs toilet only and while it took the contractor six days to repair and replace the cast iron section of pipework, the tenant still had full use of the upstairs toilet.
The landlord said that the next time they became aware of an issue with the drains was on 17 July 2024 was during a routine property inspection when the tenant told them the driveway flooded during heavy rain. At the time, the weather was fine and dry and there was no evidence of any flooding.
The landlord said that in response to the tenant’s e-mails on 25 and 30 July 2024, they arranged for a contractor to attend and investigate the blocked drains. The contractor attended on 2 August 2024 and the sewer and storm water drains were investigated by CCTV cameras. The sewer lines were found to be clear, and the storm water drains were jetted to the catch pits to clear them.
The landlord states that they received no further communication from the tenant about the storm water drains flooding until the e-mail of 12 July 2025.
The landlord told the Tribunal that between 30 July 2024 and 12 July 2025, three routine tenancy inspections were completed at the property (October 2024, February 2025, and May 2025). At no time did they observe any issues with the drains nor did the tenant indicate there was an ongoing issue with the drains. The landlord said that prior to each routine inspection they asked the tenant to list any property defects requiring attention and no list was ever provided.
The landlord said that in response to the tenant’s 12 July 2025 e-mail they tried unsuccessfully to make contact to discuss the issues. The landlord said that a 90-day notice was then issued as the landlord had received Council consent to develop the site. The property has since been demolished. Analysis and Decision
Section 45(1)(b) of the Act requires landlords to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. This means a landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair any defects brought to its attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach, however, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observations. There is also a failure to repair if the repair was ineffective, noncompliant, or unsafe. 1
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 provided for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Act requires compliance with the HHS. A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered as set out in Schedule 1A of the Act, is $7,200.00.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. All private rentals must comply within 120 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard states that all premises must have an effective drainage system for the removal of stormwater, surface water and 1 Tenant v For Homes (NZ) Limited [2025] NZTT 5028888 at [16] ground water. This includes gutters, downpipes, and drains that effectively removes water from the roof and surrounding land.
On the evidence before it the Tribunal is not satisfied that the landlord failed to comply with their obligations under section 45(1)(b) and the HHS standards.
After being made aware the storm water drains flooded during heavy rain, the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend the property and inspect the sewer line and stormwater drains. The storm water drains were then jetted to the soak pits.
If the storm water drains continued to flood as suggested by the tenant’s evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the issue was reported to the landlord. There was no evidence in the form of call records supporting the tenant’s claim that requests for repair were made by telephone. Nor was there any evidence to suggest that photographs taken of the flooded driveway on 19 August 2024 were ever brought to the landlord’s attention. The tenant could not explain to the Tribunal why they stopped e-mailing the landlord with concerns about the drainage issue, particularly as e-mail had been used to communicate with the landlord about another disrepair issue during this period.
The parties agreed that there were at least three routine property inspections between October 2024 and May 2025. At no time during those inspections did the landlord identify an issue with the storm water drains, nor did the tenant identify it as an issue.
In addition, the Tribunal was shown a text message sent by the tenant to the landlord dated 17 October 2024 which indicated he was very happy in the property and the only issue related to a leak coming from the bathroom ceiling.
The Tribunal is satisfied the landlord arranged for the storm water drains to be cleared after the tenant reported the issue in July 2024. On the evidence available the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant continued to report ongoing issue with the storm water drains. The claim for compensation and exemplary damages for blocked drains and water ingress is dismissed. Leaks in the bathroom and bedroom ceiling Tenant’s evidence
The applicant seeks compensation and exemplary damages for failure to maintain the roof, causing leaks in the bathroom and a bedroom during periods of heavy rain.
The tenant states they first noticed a leak in the bathroom ceiling during heavy rain on 19 August 2024. The tenant said he reported the leak to the landlord during a telephone conversation. However, the landlord failed to arrange for the leak to be repaired.
The tenant said that on 17 October 2024 he sent a text message to the landlord saying “Hey Mate, very happy here, ceiling in bathroom leaks that’s all”. Again, the tenant said the landlord failed to have the leak repaired.
The tenant said as there was no response to his requests for the leak in the roof to be repaired, he “just lived with it”.
The tenant produced an e-mail dated 10 June 2025, to the landlord which said: “I need to bring your attention that during the recent heavy rain we’re experience, the roof of one of the bedrooms and the bathroom is leaking again.”
The tenant said that in response to his email the landlord arranged for a contractor to come to the property and apply a waterproof membrane to the roof. However, the leak was not fixed and on 12 July 2025 he emailed the landlord as per para [21] above.
The tenant accepts that the landlord attempted to discuss the disrepair issues identified in that email with him, but he failed to respond to their call. Landlord’s evidence
The landlord denies failing to repair the roof and breaching their obligations under section 45(1) of the Act.
The landlord said that they were contacted by the tenant on 19 August 2024 and told the roof was leaking. They said they arranged for a contractor to attend that same day and a waterproof membrane was applied to the roof and to the best of their knowledge the leak was repaired.
The landlord said the tenant did not alert them to any ongoing maintenance issues at the property, which they would have expected, and no issues were identified during routine property inspections.
With respect to the leak that was reported on 11 June 2025, the landlord said they again arranged for a contractor to attend and for a waterproof membrane to be applied to the roof.
The landlord said that they did attempt to contact the tenant about the disrepair issues that were reported on 12 July 2025, but the tenant failed to respond to their calls. The landlord maintained that all requests for maintenance were responded to in a timely manner when they were reported. Analysis and decision
The applicant’s evidence was the landlord failed to carry out repairs to the property following the first reported leak in August 2024. However, the landlord’s evidence was that a contractor was immediately engaged to investigate, and the leak was repaired with a waterproof membrane.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the bathroom ceiling continued to leak during periods of heavy rain between August 2024 and June 2025. There was no evidence of the leak being identified during routine property inspections and no ongoing requests for repair. In addition, the tenant’s e-mail of 10 June 2025 indicated the bathroom had again started to leak which suggests the earlier repair had been successful.
The Tribunal accepts the tenant’s evidence that the roof again started leaking in June 2025. However, the landlord responded to the request for repair by immediately sending a contractor to the property to investigate and repair the leak.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord responded to reported maintenance issues and arranged for contractors to undertake the necessary repairs. The Tribunal notes that the repairs that were undertaken appeared to be cost effective temporary fixes given the property was scheduled for redevelopment and has subsequently been demolished. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligations under the Act, or the HHS and the claim is dismissed. Blocked bathroom drain Tenant’s evidence
The tenant states that on 25 July 2025 the bathroom drain overflowed onto the floor because of a blockage. The tenant said that they then discovered a leak on the downstairs ceiling below the bathroom.
During the hearing, the tenant produced a video taken on 28 July 2025 showing an overflowing laundry drain. The Tribunal heard that this was the first time that drain had over flowed. The Tribunal notes that this video was taken three days after the tenancy ended and the evidence was set aside. Landlord’s evidence
The landlord stated that this leak was never reported to them and on that basis, they were unable to affect a repair.
They further noted that the leak was discovered on the last day of the tenancy. Analysis and decision
As the leak was never reported to the Landlord, the claim is dismissed. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been wholly successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5315900 — 14-day notice at 768 River Road, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5315900 — 14-day notice at 768 River Road, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions