How much money was awarded in case 5332299?

Compensation: failure to maintain (d…: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: partial power only dur…: $524.76 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $70.93 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5332299?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5332299?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13414468-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5332299?

Compensation: failure to maintain (d…: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: partial power only dur…: $524.76 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $70.93 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5332299?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5332299?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13414468-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

20 Glengarry Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5332299 — State of repair

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5332299 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5332299 — net $6,245.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: failure to maintain (drainage	$3,000.00	failure to maintain (drainage
Exemplary damages: failure to maintain (drainage	$2,400.00	failure to maintain (drainage
Exemplary damages: failure to provide HHS information	$250.00	failure to provide HHS information
Compensation: partial power only during last 19 days of tenancy	$524.76	partial power only during last 19 days of tenancy
Compensation: water rates credit	$70.93	water rates credit
Net award	$6,245.69
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,245.69

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

Auckland Property Management Limited as agent for Hassell-Free Investments Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $6,245.69 immediately as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

[The tenant] was accompanied by her partner [name redacted] who also lived in the property. Although only [the tenant] is named on the tenancy agreement, I refer to them both as “the tenants” for ease of reference in this decision.

Peter McDell represented the landlord together with assistance from Stephy Qi.

This tenancy began on 23 December 2022 and ended on 18 July 2025. The property is a standalone house with carport on Glengarry Road in Glen Eden. Rent was $580 per week.

The tenants seek the following orders: a. Compensation under section 45(1)(b) and 45(1)(bb) for failure to maintain/breach of Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) due to drainage issues; b. Exemplary damages under section 45(1)(b) and 45(1)(bb) and 45(1A) for failure to maintain/breach of HHS due to drainage issues; c. Exemplary damages under section 45(1AD) for failing to provide Healthy Homes information on request; d. Compensation for only having partial electricity for the last 19 days of the tenancy; and e. Compensation for water rates credit owing by the landlord at the end of the tenancy. Onus and evidence

As with all cases that come before the Tribunal the party bringing the claim has the onus to prove their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).

A large amount of evidence was filed in this case. For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence produced and given at the hearing but the parties can be assured that I have considered all of the evidence when preparing this decision. Drainage issues

The tenants say that the landlord was in breach of both their maintenance and HHS obligations because of multiple drainage issues at the property as follows: a. the carport and entrance to the house regularly flooded; b. water leaked out of the gutters by the front door; and c. water leaked out of the gutters by their bedroom window.

Section 45(1)(b) RTA to provides that a landlord must provide and maintain the tenancy property in a reasonable state of repair.

Section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 and in this case the moisture ingress and drainage standard.

The HHS moisture and ingress drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains.

Breaching either of these obligations (maintenance or HHS) 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.

I consider that these matters are most appropriately considered under section 45(1)(b) (maintenance obligations) as the obligation to maintain is a wider obligation in this context and existed from the start of the tenancy, whereas the HHS standard is of narrower scope and the compliance date began 120 days from the start of this tenancy 1 . Front of section/carport

The tenants said that when they moved into the property they discovered that the area by the carport at the front of the section filled up with water whenever it rained and took days to drain away. This meant that they couldn’t store anything in the carport and they had to walk through water that was approximately ankle deep to get to the steps that led up to the front door.

The tenants produced photos or the water showing that it covered the entire carport and outside area leading up to the front steps, and various photos showing the depth of the water at around ankle height.

The tenants said that it became exhausting to deal with as they had to carry gumboots with them and put them on to get out of their car and walk to the house so their feet didn’t get wet. They explained that even though the area flooded when it rained, the water took so long to drain that it was wet most of the time. They said it was a difficult situation to live with as they had a young daughter and it meant that they were reluctant to invite friends over as they could not get to the front door without wading through water.

The tenants said that they were reluctant to complain about the issue until the landlord told them they intended to raise the rent. The tenants produced copies of various email correspondence to the landlord including the following: 1 As this tenancy began after August 2022 but before March 2025 the compliance date was 120 days after the start of the tenancy a. 17 April 2024: “What about the swimming pool in the carport every time it rains? We have to wear gumboots to get to our car. The owners must be aware of this. Surely that is not up to current healthy home standards”. b. 9 May 2025: “... The carport also still floods every time it rains and I sometimes start the day at work with wet boots because of it. The water gets quite deep, about an inch deep by the shed. It really needs a slot drain in the carport to deal with this issue. It would be nice to get to our vehicles without getting wet feet...” c. 10 June 2025: “Also just wondering if you have discussed a slot drain with the owner. It’s an inch deep every time it rains in the carport, and we do get very tired of getting flooded out... This was taken recently just after moderate rain, it gets much worse in heavy downpours. I’m quite sure rentals are required to have a drainage system that efficiently drains storm water and surface water” d. 27 June 2025: “The carport floods EVERY time it rains so I don’t think that’s relative to a weather ‘event’. I am probably going to have to move out because I’ve had enough of the constant flooding. It happens once a week. You didn’t mention anything about my previous photos from the other week about flooding?” 2

The tenants said that there was a council drain on the footpath at the front of the property that appeared blocked and overgrown and another drain at the front of the property that seemed to be blocked. They said that there was another house at the rear of their property, down a shared driveway and down a slope, which did not flood. They referred the Tribunal to photos of the drains and described the location of the flooding on a Google Earth map of the property.

The landlord said that they had always attended to maintenance issues and that the property met the HHS as confirmed by the statement in the tenancy agreement.

The landlord produced two Healthy Homes reports from GForce. The reports confirmed that an assessment had taken place on 4 June 2025 (approximately a month before the end of the tenancy) which showed that the property had failed the drainage standard on the basis that the gutters needed to be cleared, and had failed the ventilation standard standards as there were gaps in the windows. The landlord produced an invoice dated 27 June 2025 for gutter clearing, and a revised report showing compliance, although compliance appears to have occurred close to, or shortly after, the tenancy ended. 2 This email was written in response to an email from the landlord stating that the flooding had occurred due to an extreme weather event

At the request of the Tribunal the landlord produced a copy of the only Healthy Homes report completed prior to the start of the tenancy, which was completed by AllClear and dated 10 February 2020, over two years before the tenancy began. This recorded that the property had failed the drainage standard as: “multiple areas require remediation. Drains and gutters to be cleared of blockages. Areas of damage to drainage system requiring repair”

The report included an appendix setting out further details and photographs which highlighted debris in gutters, melted carport guttering, a crack in a down pipe and two separate drains needing unblocking.

When questioned the landlord said that they had done this work but were unable to provide details and said that they could not produce invoices and receipts as they had moved onto a different system and that information is now not available.

Mr McDell did not dispute that water frequently accumulated at the front of the property and agreed that he had worn gumboots to the front door on at least one occasion to do an inspection.

The landlord confirmed that they had not engaged a qualified tradesperson to investigate the reason for the flooding. They said that the council drain on the footpath was not on the tenancy property and so was a council issue and not an issue for the landlord.

In response to questioning from the Tribunal about whether it was acceptable for the tenants to have to walk through water to get to their front door, the landlord said that the property is in a flood plain and there is really nothing the landlord can do. Discussion

The question for the Tribunal is whether, in the context of the ongoing flooding, the landlord has complied with their obligation to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.

As a preliminary matter, I note that while the Auckland Council GIS Flood Viewer records the property as being close to a flood plain, it does not show that the property is in fact in a flood plain, as depicted in the image below (the pin showing the tenancy property):

In my view however, even if the property were in a flood plain, it is not acceptable for a property to regularly flood to an extent that it is not possible for the occupants to make it from the carport to the front door without wading through water, and for that water to remain for days on end. I accept that properties in Auckland (and throughout New Zealand) do flood from time to time, particularly in extreme weather events, but this property was flooding on a regular basis and the water was not draining away and was blocking access to the front door.

Given the ongoing flooding I have some concerns as to whether the landlord did in fact address all of the issues raised in the AllClear report in 2020. I note that the draught stopping issues referred to in that report were still present when GForce assessed the property in 2025 and the carport guttering was not attended to until 2024. The landlord produced no evidence showing that any work had been done to clear the drains.

Regardless however, given the ongoing flooding issues, the landlord should have engaged a professional to complete a thorough investigation of the property’s drainage. If the issue was the Council drain just outside the property, then the landlord should have engaged with Council to have the drain cleared.

By failing to investigate and rectify the drainage issues the landlord has breached their obligation to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair. Leak over front door

The tenants said that in June 2025 water started leaking over the guttering by the front door and provided photos which show a substantial amount of water pouring out.

The tenants notified the landlord who arranged for this to be fixed. A contractor attended on 27 June 2025.

Unexpected maintenance issues do arise from time to time. I am satisfied that the landlord has been clearing the gutters regularly and attended to this issue promptly.

There has been no breach by the landlord in respect of the leak by the front door.

The tenant also said that water had overflowed from gutters outside their bedroom window, but after reviewing the evidence in relation to this issue I am not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to find this claim proved.

There has been no breach by the landlord in respect of the leak by the bedroom. Compensation

I have found that the landlord has breached their maintenance obligations in respect of the ongoing flooding at the front of the property.

The tenants were paying rent for a property where they frequently could not get to the front door without wading through water and had to deal with stagnant groundwater at the front of the property. This reduced the amenity of the property.

It is not possible to make a precise calculation of the value of the loss of amenity. I must take into account that this is a three-bedroom home. The tenants had the full use of this property but did could not store things in the carport and had to deal with frequent flooding at the front of the property which did not drain away, leaving them to wade through water to get to the front door. The tenants gave evidence about how frustrating and inconvenient this was.

Weekly rent for this property was $580.00 per week. I consider that the reduction compensation in the amount of $3,000 is fair and appropriate, which represents a loss of amenity value of between $20.00 and $25.00 per week.

I have ordered compensation from the start of the tenancy as even though this was only raised by the tenants prior to the first rent review, the landlord more likely than not knew about the issue from the start of the tenancy having received the Healthy Homes report from All Clear and having attended multiple inspections.

By way of context, I note that the tenants paid total rent of over $77,000 during this tenancy. Exemplary damages

Breaching the obligation to repair and maintain is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The ongoing nature of this breach leads to the inevitable conclusion that the breach was intentional.

I consider that it would be just to make an award of exemplary damages as the landlord was well aware that there were drainage issues, failed to take even basic steps such as engage a drainage contractor or to contact the Council, and expected the tenants to put up with constant flooding. The ongoing flooding was inconvenient and at times exhausting for the tenants and led them to stop inviting people over. It is in the public interest for landlords to comply with their maintenance obligations.

On the occasion of a first breach is usual in the Tribunal to award approximately 1/3 of the maximum amount of exemplary damages. I seen no reason to depart from that practice on this occasion, and so order exemplary damages in the amount of $2,400. Healthy Homes information

The tenants said that they became concerned that the property did not meet the HHS and so when a contractor came to do a report, they requested a copy. They produced email correspondence with the landlord on 7 June 2025 and then again on 27 June 2025 requesting a copy of the report, but the landlord did not send them with a copy, and they did not see a copy until a copy was provided at this hearing.

The landlord said that they had provided a Healthy Homes Statement in the Tenancy Agreement and that they had complied with their obligations.

Section 45(1AC) RTA provides that if a tenant requests the landlord to provide the records of documents that relate to the landlord’s compliance with the HHS, the landlord must, within 21 days after the date of receiving the request, provide the information to the tenant.

As the landlord failed to do so they are in breach of their obligations and have committed an unlawful act.

The unlawful act was intentional, as the tenants requested the Healthy Homes report and the landlord did not provide them with a copy. The result was that the tenants did not have the information they needed to assess whether the property was Healthy Homes compliant, and if not, what issues needed to be resolved.

It is in the public interest that landlords comply with the RTA and provide tenants with information that they are entitled to see if they request it.

I consider that an award of exemplary damages should be made in this case. The maximum amount is $750.00. In keeping with usual practice, I order exemplary damages in the amount of $250 on the occasion of this first breach. Compensation for lack of electricity for last 19 days of tenancy

The tenants said that on 30 June 2025 the landlord sent an electrician to investigate a loss of all power. The electrician cut off the power on the basis that it was unsafe and would need to be urgently attended to.

I was provided with a copy of an email from a different electrician who provided a quote to re-wire the property on an urgent basis, dated 1 July 2025, as follows: “The current electrical installation, particularly the old fuse board, does not meet current safety standards. Specifically, the absence of Residual Current Devices (RCDs) means there is no adequate protection against electric shock, which presents a potential risk to tenants, especially in the event of a fault. While there are no immediate visible signs of overheating or fire risk on the board itself, the age of the installation and the lack of up-to-date circuit protection means we cannot fully rule out the potential for electrical fire hazards. As such, continued occupation carries a degree of risk, particularly if the system is under significant load or if faults develop undetected. Given this, I would strongly recommend that:

The rewire is prioritised and scheduled at the earliest opportunity.

In the interim, the tenants are advised to take precautions- such as avoid overloading sockets and reporting any signs of electrical issues (e.g. flickering lights, warm sockets, tripping). The wiring is in really poor condition and does need immediate attention. The house has some of the power that is no longer working, we do recommend rewiring this house at the earliest convenience”

The tenants said that they went 19 days during winter with no heat pump and no power except for a one plug in the kitchen for the fridge/freezer. They said that they became increasingly concerned that the landlord did not appear to be taking any steps to rectify the situation.

The tenants said that they suggested a 50% rent reduction until the issue was resolved but the landlord did not accept this and advised them that they could give notice under section 59 RTA which allows tenants to give notice of only 2 days where the property is uninhabitable.

The tenants gave notice the property on 11 July 2025 and moved out on 18 July 2025. They seek compensation for the period during which there was limited power, a period of 19 days.

The landlord agreed that property needed to be urgently re-wired and some of the circuits had to be turned off but said that one circuit remained and there was still hot water, lights in the lounge and kitchen and that the tenants could run an extension cord to operate the fridge.

The tenants agreed that there had been some power but said that they could only run the fridge off the extension cord without tripping the fuse and so they could not run any other electrical appliances including heaters (which is why they declined the landlord’s offer to supply a heater). They said it was a very difficult time as it was during the coldest period of winter.

In my view the tenants are entitled to some compensation for the period during which they did not have full power. Although it appears that the landlord promptly obtained and accepted a quote to re-wire the property, the tenants were without power for 19 days until the tenancy ended, and the lack of power was due to the electrical wiring not meeting current safety standards.

I consider that compensation of $524.76 is appropriate, which amounts to approximately 1/3 of the daily rental for the property over that period. Refund of water rates credit

The tenant said that they were in credit for water rates at the end of the tenancy in the amount of $70.93 and sought payment of this amount.

The landlord produced a ledger showing a water rates credit of $70.93 at the end of the tenancy. The ledger showed that the same amount had been applied to “stove cleaning” leaving a zero balance.

The tenant said that they had never been told that there was an issue with the stove and were never told that their water rates credit had been applied in this way.

A landlord is not entitled to unilaterally deduct compensation for a breach of the tenant’s obligations (in this case the obligation to leave the property clean and tidy) unless there is agreement with the tenant or an order of the Tribunal.

In this case the tenant was not even aware that a breach had been alleged. The landlord has not filed a claim seeking compensation for cleaning.

In the circumstances the water rates credit owing at the end of the tenancy is awarded to the tenant. Filing fee and name suppression

The tenants have been substantially successful in their claim and so I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The tenants sought an order for name suppression and are entitled to an order as the substantially successful party (see section 95A RTA).

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5332299 — net $6,245.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: failure to maintain (drainage	$3,000.00	failure to maintain (drainage
Exemplary damages: failure to maintain (drainage	$2,400.00	failure to maintain (drainage
Exemplary damages: failure to provide HHS information	$250.00	failure to provide HHS information
Compensation: partial power only during last 19 days of tenancy	$524.76	partial power only during last 19 days of tenancy
Compensation: water rates credit	$70.93	water rates credit
Net award	$6,245.69
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,245.69