What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5333959 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 5333959?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5333959?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5333959?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12721905-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5333959 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 5333959?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5333959?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5333959?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12721905-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

75 Buick Crescent, Awapuni, Palmerston North 4412 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5333959 — Healthy homes

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord’s claim was for payment of a plumber’s invoice which included the cost of obtaining a report on the water at the property under the Water Services (Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand) Regulations 2022 (“the Regulations”).
In considering the landlord’s claim, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
The Tribunal must also have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
It is intended that this order be as concise as possible to convey the essential facts, the law and the Tribunal’s reason for its decisions. Background
The parties and their evidence agreed the following: a. The tenant contacted the landlord on 3 August 2025 to complain that the hot water cylinder was no longer heating the same quantity of water and that the water was causing her and her son an extreme skin irritation. b. The landlord instructed a plumber to attend urgently. c. The plumber attended on 4 August 2025 and issued an invoice for $290.38, including a charge of $115.00 for water testing. d. The invoice narration reads: “Travel to job, talked to tenant about hot water. Took a water sample for testing. Explained to tenant how the hot water cylinder works and how much water it holds. Advised running a bath would use most of the water. Checked out shower water and all seems OK pressure wise for system set up. Very little staining or discolor. Dropped of water sample to testing laboratory. Reports show water testing within safety limits.”
The water test under the Regulations confirmed that levels of copper, iron and manganese were less that the maximum acceptable value or the guideline value.
Because the landlord’s plumber and the water testing did not show any issue with the hot water cylinder or the water quality, the landlord wants the tenant to pay for the plumber’s visit and water testing. The tenant’s submissions
The tenant provided the following evidence and made the following submissions: a. There were no issues with the hot water supply hen the tenant moved in on 28 February 2025. Around May 2025 she began to run out of hot water in situations where she had not previously, despite not changing her usage of hot water. b. Around the same time, she began to notice a rash on her and her son’s skin which she assumed was dermatitis. She went to her doctor with her son on seven occasions and tried various recommended treatments. She also changed the soaps and shampoos she and her son were using, as well as their diet. The rash became significantly worse. The photographic evidence shows a significant, extensive and angry rash over the tenant’s head, neck and upper torso and around the neck and armpit of her son. She tried different creams, including psoriasis treatment. c. At the time the tenant complained to the landlord on 3 August 2023, she stopped using hot water at the property and showered elsewhere. d. Because of the significant inconvenience of showering elsewhere, the tenant texted the landlord on 7 August and 14 August 2025 seeking advice about the water testing. e. She obtained informal advice from two plumbers who suggested that the problem of the skin irritation and the reduction of hot water supply could be the result of the hot water cylinder element corroding. As the water results were not yet available, she decided to get the issue fixed at her own expense and engaged an electrician. His invoice narration reads: “Attended site on 14/08/25 to address customer complaint of water discolouration. The hot water cylinder was flushed three times to remove accumulated sediment buildup, which was identified as the cause of the issue. The heating element was also replaced as part of the works. Following the procedure, the water ran clear and normal operation was restored.” f. The tenant’s electrician issued an Electrical Certificate of Compliance and Electrical Safety Certificate on 10 September 2025 at the landlord’s request. g. The electrician emailed the landlord on 10 October 2025: “I replaced the hwc element as the tenant advised me that she had broken out in rashes due to water issues and when we took the element out it was starting to corrode due to age and possibly high levels of chemicals in the water and she said she wasn’t able to shower in her own house so was happy to pay for it to be replaced to fix the issue. I can also confirm she payed for materials and labour thanks.” h. Her and her son’s rashes have subsequently cleared up while continuing to use the same shampoo, soap and other lifestyle products. The hot water supply has returned to what it was at the start of the tenancy. i. She supplied videos of the discharge of sediment from the hot water cylinder and advised that the system needed to be flushed through three times to remove all of the sediment. The landlord’s submissions
The landlord made the following submissions: a. The landlord’s plumber recorded no rust in the water, only very little discolouration. b. The water test had to go to the Central Environmental Laboratory where it took ten working days to process. c. The landlord’s plumber’s professional opinion was that the element did not require replacement. If there was an issue with the element then it would not have worked. In any event, the landlord was not given an opportunity to replace the element. d. The tenant’s electrician was not fully qualified. e. The tenant has not supplied any independent testing result that shows there was anything wrong with the water that could have caused the tenant and her son’s rash. Consideration and decision
The landlord’s claim was that it was put to the expense of a plumber’s callout and a water test that was not necessary because its plumber and the water test did not reveal anything that could have caused the tenant’s and her son’s rash. Essentially, its claim was that this situation is similar to the situation when a tenant claims the stove is not working and the landlord’s electrician finds that the wall switch had been turned off. It would then be unreasonable for the landlord to pay for the consequence of the tenant or a tenant’s child’s carelessness.
The tenant claimed that her physical condition was serious and deteriorating, and that her inability to use the hot water in the property for a period of nearly two weeks was causing serious inconvenience. She claimed that the hot water cylinder’s deteriorating element and accumulated sediment caused her and her son’s serious skin complaint and a reduction in the hot water supply.
It is possible that the landlord’s plumber was wrong in his conclusions about the hot water cylinder. It is equally possible that the tenant’s electrician was wrong in his assumption regarding the problem. Perhaps the skin condition was a seasonal allergy, or a condition not caused by the water but by any number of other possible causes.
It is not necessary for the Tribunal to decide what caused the tenant’s rash. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to enable it to decide this. What the Tribunal needs to determine is whether the tenant’s request to have the landlord’s plumber attend at the property to check the hot water cylinder and the water was reasonable in the circumstances and justified, or whether the tenant was irresponsible or negligent in determining that a tradesperson was needed.
Clearly, the tenant and her son were in considerable discomfort from the skin affliction. The tenant gave evidence that she tried to determine if there was any other cause for it, before asking the landlord to investigate the hot water cylinder. She had obtained medical advice, altered her choice of lifestyle products and their diet but without any improvement in her skin condition. It was not therefore unreasonable of her to ask the landlord to investigate this possible cause of her problems. The tenant was sincere in her belief and experienced considerable inconvenience in not using hot water at the property. Indeed, her belief was so sincere that, eventually and in desperation, she had the hot water cylinder investigated and repaired at her own expense.
In these circumstances, the substantial merits and justice of the case require that the landlord meets its plumber’s cost and the landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5333959 — Healthy homes at 75 Buick Crescent, Awapuni, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5333959 — Healthy homes at 75 Buick Crescent, Awapuni, Palmerston North 4412

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