What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5334265 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5334265?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5334265?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5334265?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12733802-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5334265 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5334265?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5334265?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5334265?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12733802-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 45 Tranmere Road, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5334265 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

On 26 August 2025, the tenant filed an application with the Tribunal seeking a work order - to soundproof an external drainpipe, and compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment and loss of amenity.

The hearing proceeded in person. The tenant appeared. Ms Nicola Burkhart, Property Manager, and Ms Nic Elliotyson, Operations Manager, appeared for the landlord. 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.

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.

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.

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. Background to the tenancy

The tenancy commenced on 7 March 2025 with the fixed term due to end on 8 March 2026.

The landlord states the property was built to code in 2022 and is part of a duplex.

The property contains three bedrooms, one with ensuite, separate bathroom, and a lounge/dining/kitchen area.

The tenant is the second person to occupy the property. Downpipe noise complaint

The tenant said she had been sleeping in the north facing bedroom.

On 5 April 2025 at 14:20 hours, following heavy rain, the tenant said she heard the sound of water dripping in the exterior drainpipe. The tenant said she was disturbed by the sound and used a decibel meter app on her mobile phone to measure the noise. The tenant said the app showed a maximum reading of 56- 63 decibels (dB) and an average recording of 34-37dB.

At 03:30 hours on 6 April 2025 the tenant said she was woken by the sound of dripping in the drainpipe. She said she measured the sound using the same decibel app and recorded: a. a maximum reading between 53 – 73dB. b. An average reading of 31-40dB.

The issue was reported to the landlord on 6 April 2025. On 10 April 2025, the landlord’s maintenance manager came to the property, no defects were identified and the tenant said she was given permission to install a sound dampening sponge tape around the drainpipe. The tenant was told she would need to remove the tape, and any adhesive residue left behind, at the end of the tenancy.

During the hearing, the tenant played three short video clips as evidence of the drainpipe noise. The noises were recorded by the tenant, in the north facing bedroom where she had been sleeping, using the mobile phone decibel app. The recordings were: a. 27 June 2025 at 22:45 hours – drainpipe drip with a reading of 34dB. b. 28 June 2025 at 00:30 hours – drainpipe drip with a reading between 20 – 30db. c. 28 June 2025 at 04:45 hours – drainpipe drip with a maximum reading of 35 dB; however, the decibel reader used by the tenant recorded the sound as being predominantly in the low 20db range.

The tenant said she undertook google research which indicates the following: a. sound readings below 60dB during the day are considered to be within a normal range. b. Sound readings over 60dB are above the normal range. On that basis the tenant seeks a work order requiring the landlord to install sound dampening tape on the drainpipe to remedy the unreasonable noise created by the drip as evidenced by her decibel readings.

The tenant said that as a result of the noise she no longer sleeps in this north facing sunny bedroom because she cannot risk her sleep being disturbed. The tenant seeks compensation for loss of amenity arising from the intermittent drainpipe noise.

The landlord denies liability for compensation and repairs for the dripping noise in the drainpipe. The landlord’s position is that the noise is intermittent, follows a period of heavy rain and is a result of the last of the water running off the roof and into the drainpipe.

The landlord said the property complies with all building regulations and is well maintained.

The landlord said there was no further correspondence between themselves and tenant over this issue since their maintenance managers visit to the property on 10 April 2025. They did not know about the tenant’s request for a work order until receiving notice of this application.

The landlord produced an invoice from their plumbing contractor. The plumber attended the property on or around 5 November 2025 to investigate the issue. The invoice states, unsuccessful attempts were made to simulate the sound, and no issues were identified with the drainpipes.

The landlord conducted their own google research and told the Tribunal that: a. The tenant’s stated maximum reading of 73dB is not considered unsafe. b. Rainfall typically measures around 50dB – similar to a quiet conversation. c. Heavy rainfall can reach 60-70dB – which is considered moderate. d. Unsafe exposure begins at sustained periods over 85 dB according to WHO and CDC guidelines.

The landlord said, the Tribunal should adopt the practice of the Ministry of the Environment when considering ongoing noise measurement and focus on the average decibel reading not the maximum. If the Tribunal were to adopt that approach, the tenant’s highest reported average was 40dB, below the level of heavy rain.

The landlord’s position is that the noise is: a. Consistent with normal environmental conditions following periods of heavy rain. b. Is not consistent or prolonged. c. The average reading of 40dB level is not unsafe. d. The noise is not the result of a defect with the building or plumbing. e. The noise is not a result of a disrepair issue. f. The tenant has been given permission to install noise dampening sponge tape.

Should the Tribunal make a work order?

The tenant has asked the Tribunal to make a work order requiring the landlord to install noise dampening tape on a downpipe outside the north facing bedroom window to dampen the sound of the water dripping in the pipe.

Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca)of the Act, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.

Where the Tribunal finds, the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) of the Act.

If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) of the Act.

A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) of the Act.

On the facts, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the dripping drainpipe noise is persistent, loud or as a result of a defect or disrepair issue with the property. The landlord was first made aware of the issue on 6 April 2025. Following an inspection, no defects with the building or disrepair issues were identified. The tenant was given permission to apply/install sound dampening tape at her own expense. The tenant declined to do so.

The landlord arranged for a professional plumbing contractor to attend the property to investigate the issue. No fault was detected with the operation of the drainpipe nor were any construction defects identified.

The Tribunal was not satisfied with the evidence provided on the decibel level of the drainpipe drip or interpretations of that evidence. The Tribunal cannot be satisfied the readings were properly taken, the app was accurately calibrated and working correctly on the tenant’s telephone.

The Tribunal finds that the noise from the dripping drainpipe were consistent with normal environmental conditions following periods of heavy rain. On that basis the claim for a work order is dismissed.

Should the Tribunal award compensation?

Section 38(2) of the Act confirms that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”

Compensation may be awarded if the tenant’s right to use and enjoy the premises has been substantially interfered with by excessive or unreasonable noise. The Tribunal must consider whether the noise is beyond what would be expected in normal residential living.

Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied that the noise complained of is beyond what would be expected in normal residential living. The tenant acknowledged having last heard the noise on 27 June 2025, despite continuing to use the room during the day. On that basis the Tribunal is satisfied the noise was intermittent and minor, only occurring after periods of heavy rain. While the Tribunal heard the tenant no longer slept in the north facing bedroom, this was because she was concerned the noise might return, not because the noise was persistent and ongoing.

The Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant’s evidence has met the threshold to show the dripping drainpipe caused substantial interference with her use and enjoyment of the property and the claim is dismissed.

Reasons