What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341382 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 5341382?

Property Damage: $653.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of use (septic ta…: $2,180.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Use (Shower: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,455.04 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341382?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341382?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12985105-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341382 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 5341382?

Property Damage: $653.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of use (septic ta…: $2,180.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Use (Shower: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,455.04 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341382?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341382?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12985105-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

30C Beachcroft Avenue, Onehunga, Auckland 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5341382 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341382 — net $1,552.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 05/12/2025	$125.00		4. The landlord made a cross-application for rent arrears, water rates arrears, and reimbursement of the application filing fee.
Water rates owing as at 05/12/2025	$1,455.04		59. The landlord sought $125.00 for rent and $1,455.04 for water rates arrears owing to 5 December
Compensation: Broken window replacement		$653.00	Broken window replacement
Compensation: Loss of use (septic tank		$2,180.00	Loss of use (septic tank
Compensation: Loss of use (shower		$300.00	Loss of use (shower
Total award	$1,580.04	$3,133.00
Net award		$1,552.96
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,552.96

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,552.96 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. This can be by way of a rent credit:
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 2 February 2026: a. Repair or replace the shower liner.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 5 December 2025.
The tenancy began on 16 April 2019 and is still an ongoing tenancy.
The tenant claimed for breach of Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”), compensation for malfunctioning septic tank, stairwell leak, reimbursement for replacing broken window, work order together with compensation for a leaking shower, exemplary damages for failing to maintain the premises, and reimbursement of the application filing fee.
The landlord made a cross-application for rent arrears, water rates arrears, and reimbursement of the application filing fee.
I deal with the tenant’s applications first. Breach of HHS
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a landlord must comply with HHS.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant claimed that the premises did not meet the minimum requirements for heating standards. She claimed that the house was constantly freezing in winter and did not reach a reasonable indoor temperature even when the heater was on, making it unsafe and unhealthy to live in the house.
The tenant wanted the Tribunal to order the landlord to install and maintain adequate heating to ensure the house meets the HHS.
The tenant provided a temperature measurement form the premises as evidence.
To rebut the tenant’s claims, the landlord provided HHS assessment report confirming that the premises was compliant with HHS as of 29 June 2021. That HHS report confirmed that there was a 5.4 kW gas heater along with a 6.0 kW heat pump.
The tenant said that she was told by one of the heating technicians not to use the gas heater since the heat pump was installed to top it. The tenant said that the gas heater smelled like it was burning so she had not been using the gas heater since. 5341382, 53415003
The landlord said that they were never made aware of the fact that the tenant had not been using the gas heater or that the tenant was told to not use it.
The tenant has the onus of proving her claims. There is nothing provided to rebut the HHS assessment report from 29 June 2021 or any updated HHS to prove that the house was no longer compliant with HHS. There was no evidence of the gas heater not being usable.
Therefore, this claim is not proven to the required standard and is dismissed. Septic tank and stairwell leak
The tenant claimed that the septic tank system had been malfunctioning since the early days of the tenancy in 2019. One time, the septic tank was leaking into the neighbour’s property creating a serious health and safety hazard.
The tenant said that the ongoing problems began on 25 May 2025, which created an unsanitary and unsafe environment for the tenant. The landlord had attempted to fix the problem but the issues remained unresolved, leaving the septic tank full of sewage, the property stinking of sewage and unsafe for occupancy.
She took steps to notify the landlord by texting the landlord on 25 May 2025, calling the landlord 26 May 2025, texting again on 12 June 2025, conversing about it face to face during an inspection on 14 July 2025, emailing on 4 August 2025 and finally issuing a formal 14-day notice to remedy on 7 August 2025.
The entire septic tank pump system was replaced through insurance on 18 September 2025 after the landlord having lodged the insurance claim on 5 September 2025.
The tenant also said that there was a leak in the stairwell that had been present since May 2023 causing water damage and creating a potential safety hazard.
The tenant first reported the leak in May 2023 and the landlord sent a handyman to attend to the leak. The tenant informed the handyman to pass on to the landlord that it was still leaking in September 2023. In October 2023, the tenant texted the property manager about it. During an inspection, the tenant was told that the stairwell leak was not going to be repaired and the tenant asked for confirmation in writing for this in August 2025.
On 7 August 2025 the tenant issued a formal 14-day notice to remedy along with the septic tank. On 19 August 2025, the internal repair was completed after multiple follow ups. On 27 August 2025, the external repair was finally completed after another follow up by the tenant.
The persistent sewage odour from the septic system had caused stress, worry and fear for the health of the tenant’s children. The tenant had attached reading 5341382, 53415004 for air quality from her son’s room which is located closest to the septic tank as well as the stairwell leak.
The tenant claimed that taking nearly two years for the stairwell leak to be repaired was unreasonable.
For the septic tank, the landlord provided invoices from 28 May 2025, 30 May 2025, 1 June 2025. In that period, Drain Ninjas found that no power was running to the pump initially. After investigation, they found that the valve had been set to off and turned it back on. Ace Draining sent a sucker and cleaned the pump pit. They found that nothing was stuck inside the pump, but testing showed that pump had burnt out and needed new installation.
The landlord had an inspection on 14 July 2025. The landlord said that they did not notice any foul smell from the premises then.
After the 14-day notice being issued on 7 August 2025, Drain Ninjas again attended on 12 August 2025 and pumped out the chamber. On 9 September 2025, it was confirmed that the pump motor had signs of burnout. It was noted the pump motor failure resulted from a sudden and accidental burnout triggered by an obstruction in the system rather than any gradual deterioration.
Due to the pump failure, the toilets blocked up, the sink did not go down, the laundry could not be used, the lawn could not be used for the children or the dog, and clothes could not be hung on the clothesline. For washing clothes, the tenant had to uber to the laundromat.
With that background, I now consider whether there should be any compensation.
There was unexplainable delay between 1 June 2025 and 12 August 2025. The landlord was told that pump had burnt out and needed new installation but nothing happened until the tenant served a 14-day notice on 7 August 2025. When the landlord finally lodged an insurance claim, it took less than 2 weeks for the entire pump system to be replaced. At other times, the landlord sent contractors to attend to the septic tank as required.
I find compensation of $20.00 per day for not being able to fully enjoy the premises between 1 June 2025 and when the septic tank system was fully replaced on 18 September 2025. That comes to a total of $2,180.00 which I order the landlord to compensate the tenant.
For the stairwell, the tenant did not follow up with the stairwell issue between 24 October 2023 until 7 August 2025. The landlord admitted to having missed the original leak complaint from the 24 October 2023 text message but when prompted again on 7 August 2025 by email, the landlord acted promptly and had it fully remedied by end of August 2025. I do not order compensation in the circumstances. 5341382, 53415005 Reimbursement for broken window
The tenant claimed for compensation of $653.00 for having replaced a large window adjacent to the front door that was broken during a storm. The tenant said that the glass had been unsafe and did not meet the New Zealand safety standards as it was neither safety glass nor laminated.
The tenant had replaced the glass by contacting the glass professional herself given the urgency at the time.
The tenant proved that the window had been replaced by providing an invoice and photos from the inspections before. However, the tenant should have let the landlord know about it and taken photos of the broken window before she replaced it. In that case, the landlord could have claimed insurance on it. It was not the ideal way for the broken window to be dealt with.
However, the tenant should still not have to be liable for having to replace any windows broken by a storm.
I order the landlord to reimburse the tenant $653.00 for having replaced the broken window.
There was no evidence to suggest that the window was non-compliant at the time it was installed originally so I take no issues with that. The leaking shower
The tenant first reported that there was a bathroom leak on 21 May 2025. The upstairs bathroom leaked down to the downstairs toilet wall.
The following day, on 22 May 2025, a plumber attended and identified the shower liner as the issue. There were multiple cracks in the shower liner, and the plumber took measurements on the shower liner to get quotes.
On 27 May 2025, the tenant followed up with the plumber after not having heard about the leak and asked to get the bathtub pipes checked again.
On 30 May 2025, the plumber came and fixed the leak from the bathtub but left a hole in the downstairs ceiling below the bath. The shower liner was not replaced.
On 4 August 2025, the tenant wrote an email to the landlord asking when the ceiling would be fixed. On 7 August 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord about the hole and also highlighted that the shower liner still needed to be repaired.
On 8 August 2025, the tenant included both the shower lining and hole in the ceiling in the 14-day notice.
On 19 August 2025, the ceiling was repaired but the shower liner remained still cracked. 5341382, 53415006
The shower liner issue apparently was never told to the landlord by the plumber back in May 2025. The tenant did not inform the landlord until the 14-day notice was served. It turned out that the property manager did not fully understand the extent of the shower lining issue due to English being a second language when the 14-day notice was received.
Fortunately for the tenant, there was a second shower that could be used for her and her children. The leaking shower had not been able to be used since 22 May 2025.
At the hearing, the landlord confirmed that the shower liner would be repaired or replaced within 2 weeks. That means that the shower liner would have been fixed by the time of this order.
If the shower liner is still not fixed within 2 weeks of this order, the tenant can apply to the Tribunal for further compensation.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $300.00 for the loss of use of the shower. Exemplary damages for failing to maintain the premises
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this 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 RTA.
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) RTA.
Although as I have found that there were maintenance issues at the premises that resulted in the premises not being in a reasonable state of repair, I do not find that they were intentionally neglected.
The landlord attended to the issues when the maintenance requests were followed up adequately. The landlord sent contractors multiple times to get the premises maintained. I do not find that the landlord had ignored the issues.
I do find that the situation warrants exemplary damages that goes beyond the compensation ordered above. Landlord’s cross-application
Having dealt with the tenant’s application, I now consider the landlord’s cross- application. 5341382, 53415007
The landlord sought $125.00 for rent and $1,455.04 for water rates arrears owing to 5 December 2025.
The tenant did not oppose the claims.
As the tenant accepted the rent arrears and water rates arrears owing to the time of the hearing, I order the tenant to pay the landlord $125.00 for rent $1,455.04 for water rates. Reimbursement of the filing fee
As both parties were substantially successful with their applications, I do not order for reimbursement of the filing fees to be paid by the opposing party.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341382 — net $1,552.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 05/12/2025	$125.00		4. The landlord made a cross-application for rent arrears, water rates arrears, and reimbursement of the application filing fee.
Water rates owing as at 05/12/2025	$1,455.04		59. The landlord sought $125.00 for rent and $1,455.04 for water rates arrears owing to 5 December
Compensation: Broken window replacement		$653.00	Broken window replacement
Compensation: Loss of use (septic tank		$2,180.00	Loss of use (septic tank
Compensation: Loss of use (shower		$300.00	Loss of use (shower
Total award	$1,580.04	$3,133.00
Net award		$1,552.96
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,552.96

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,552.96 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. This can be by way of a rent credit:
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 2 February 2026: a. Repair or replace the shower liner.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 5 December 2025.
The tenancy began on 16 April 2019 and is still an ongoing tenancy.
The tenant claimed for breach of Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”), compensation for malfunctioning septic tank, stairwell leak, reimbursement for replacing broken window, work order together with compensation for a leaking shower, exemplary damages for failing to maintain the premises, and reimbursement of the application filing fee.
The landlord made a cross-application for rent arrears, water rates arrears, and reimbursement of the application filing fee.
I deal with the tenant’s applications first. Breach of HHS
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a landlord must comply with HHS.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant claimed that the premises did not meet the minimum requirements for heating standards. She claimed that the house was constantly freezing in winter and did not reach a reasonable indoor temperature even when the heater was on, making it unsafe and unhealthy to live in the house.
The tenant wanted the Tribunal to order the landlord to install and maintain adequate heating to ensure the house meets the HHS.
The tenant provided a temperature measurement form the premises as evidence.
To rebut the tenant’s claims, the landlord provided HHS assessment report confirming that the premises was compliant with HHS as of 29 June 2021. That HHS report confirmed that there was a 5.4 kW gas heater along with a 6.0 kW heat pump.
The tenant said that she was told by one of the heating technicians not to use the gas heater since the heat pump was installed to top it. The tenant said that the gas heater smelled like it was burning so she had not been using the gas heater since. 5341382, 53415003
The landlord said that they were never made aware of the fact that the tenant had not been using the gas heater or that the tenant was told to not use it.
The tenant has the onus of proving her claims. There is nothing provided to rebut the HHS assessment report from 29 June 2021 or any updated HHS to prove that the house was no longer compliant with HHS. There was no evidence of the gas heater not being usable.
Therefore, this claim is not proven to the required standard and is dismissed. Septic tank and stairwell leak
The tenant claimed that the septic tank system had been malfunctioning since the early days of the tenancy in 2019. One time, the septic tank was leaking into the neighbour’s property creating a serious health and safety hazard.
The tenant said that the ongoing problems began on 25 May 2025, which created an unsanitary and unsafe environment for the tenant. The landlord had attempted to fix the problem but the issues remained unresolved, leaving the septic tank full of sewage, the property stinking of sewage and unsafe for occupancy.
She took steps to notify the landlord by texting the landlord on 25 May 2025, calling the landlord 26 May 2025, texting again on 12 June 2025, conversing about it face to face during an inspection on 14 July 2025, emailing on 4 August 2025 and finally issuing a formal 14-day notice to remedy on 7 August 2025.
The entire septic tank pump system was replaced through insurance on 18 September 2025 after the landlord having lodged the insurance claim on 5 September 2025.
The tenant also said that there was a leak in the stairwell that had been present since May 2023 causing water damage and creating a potential safety hazard.
The tenant first reported the leak in May 2023 and the landlord sent a handyman to attend to the leak. The tenant informed the handyman to pass on to the landlord that it was still leaking in September 2023. In October 2023, the tenant texted the property manager about it. During an inspection, the tenant was told that the stairwell leak was not going to be repaired and the tenant asked for confirmation in writing for this in August 2025.
On 7 August 2025 the tenant issued a formal 14-day notice to remedy along with the septic tank. On 19 August 2025, the internal repair was completed after multiple follow ups. On 27 August 2025, the external repair was finally completed after another follow up by the tenant.
The persistent sewage odour from the septic system had caused stress, worry and fear for the health of the tenant’s children. The tenant had attached reading 5341382, 53415004 for air quality from her son’s room which is located closest to the septic tank as well as the stairwell leak.
The tenant claimed that taking nearly two years for the stairwell leak to be repaired was unreasonable.
For the septic tank, the landlord provided invoices from 28 May 2025, 30 May 2025, 1 June 2025. In that period, Drain Ninjas found that no power was running to the pump initially. After investigation, they found that the valve had been set to off and turned it back on. Ace Draining sent a sucker and cleaned the pump pit. They found that nothing was stuck inside the pump, but testing showed that pump had burnt out and needed new installation.
The landlord had an inspection on 14 July 2025. The landlord said that they did not notice any foul smell from the premises then.
After the 14-day notice being issued on 7 August 2025, Drain Ninjas again attended on 12 August 2025 and pumped out the chamber. On 9 September 2025, it was confirmed that the pump motor had signs of burnout. It was noted the pump motor failure resulted from a sudden and accidental burnout triggered by an obstruction in the system rather than any gradual deterioration.
Due to the pump failure, the toilets blocked up, the sink did not go down, the laundry could not be used, the lawn could not be used for the children or the dog, and clothes could not be hung on the clothesline. For washing clothes, the tenant had to uber to the laundromat.
With that background, I now consider whether there should be any compensation.
There was unexplainable delay between 1 June 2025 and 12 August 2025. The landlord was told that pump had burnt out and needed new installation but nothing happened until the tenant served a 14-day notice on 7 August 2025. When the landlord finally lodged an insurance claim, it took less than 2 weeks for the entire pump system to be replaced. At other times, the landlord sent contractors to attend to the septic tank as required.
I find compensation of $20.00 per day for not being able to fully enjoy the premises between 1 June 2025 and when the septic tank system was fully replaced on 18 September 2025. That comes to a total of $2,180.00 which I order the landlord to compensate the tenant.
For the stairwell, the tenant did not follow up with the stairwell issue between 24 October 2023 until 7 August 2025. The landlord admitted to having missed the original leak complaint from the 24 October 2023 text message but when prompted again on 7 August 2025 by email, the landlord acted promptly and had it fully remedied by end of August 2025. I do not order compensation in the circumstances. 5341382, 53415005 Reimbursement for broken window
The tenant claimed for compensation of $653.00 for having replaced a large window adjacent to the front door that was broken during a storm. The tenant said that the glass had been unsafe and did not meet the New Zealand safety standards as it was neither safety glass nor laminated.
The tenant had replaced the glass by contacting the glass professional herself given the urgency at the time.
The tenant proved that the window had been replaced by providing an invoice and photos from the inspections before. However, the tenant should have let the landlord know about it and taken photos of the broken window before she replaced it. In that case, the landlord could have claimed insurance on it. It was not the ideal way for the broken window to be dealt with.
However, the tenant should still not have to be liable for having to replace any windows broken by a storm.
I order the landlord to reimburse the tenant $653.00 for having replaced the broken window.
There was no evidence to suggest that the window was non-compliant at the time it was installed originally so I take no issues with that. The leaking shower
The tenant first reported that there was a bathroom leak on 21 May 2025. The upstairs bathroom leaked down to the downstairs toilet wall.
The following day, on 22 May 2025, a plumber attended and identified the shower liner as the issue. There were multiple cracks in the shower liner, and the plumber took measurements on the shower liner to get quotes.
On 27 May 2025, the tenant followed up with the plumber after not having heard about the leak and asked to get the bathtub pipes checked again.
On 30 May 2025, the plumber came and fixed the leak from the bathtub but left a hole in the downstairs ceiling below the bath. The shower liner was not replaced.
On 4 August 2025, the tenant wrote an email to the landlord asking when the ceiling would be fixed. On 7 August 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord about the hole and also highlighted that the shower liner still needed to be repaired.
On 8 August 2025, the tenant included both the shower lining and hole in the ceiling in the 14-day notice.
On 19 August 2025, the ceiling was repaired but the shower liner remained still cracked. 5341382, 53415006
The shower liner issue apparently was never told to the landlord by the plumber back in May 2025. The tenant did not inform the landlord until the 14-day notice was served. It turned out that the property manager did not fully understand the extent of the shower lining issue due to English being a second language when the 14-day notice was received.
Fortunately for the tenant, there was a second shower that could be used for her and her children. The leaking shower had not been able to be used since 22 May 2025.
At the hearing, the landlord confirmed that the shower liner would be repaired or replaced within 2 weeks. That means that the shower liner would have been fixed by the time of this order.
If the shower liner is still not fixed within 2 weeks of this order, the tenant can apply to the Tribunal for further compensation.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $300.00 for the loss of use of the shower. Exemplary damages for failing to maintain the premises
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this 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 RTA.
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) RTA.
Although as I have found that there were maintenance issues at the premises that resulted in the premises not being in a reasonable state of repair, I do not find that they were intentionally neglected.
The landlord attended to the issues when the maintenance requests were followed up adequately. The landlord sent contractors multiple times to get the premises maintained. I do not find that the landlord had ignored the issues.
I do find that the situation warrants exemplary damages that goes beyond the compensation ordered above. Landlord’s cross-application
Having dealt with the tenant’s application, I now consider the landlord’s cross- application. 5341382, 53415007
The landlord sought $125.00 for rent and $1,455.04 for water rates arrears owing to 5 December 2025.
The tenant did not oppose the claims.
As the tenant accepted the rent arrears and water rates arrears owing to the time of the hearing, I order the tenant to pay the landlord $125.00 for rent $1,455.04 for water rates. Reimbursement of the filing fee
As both parties were substantially successful with their applications, I do not order for reimbursement of the filing fees to be paid by the opposing party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341382 — Property damage at 30C Beachcroft Avenue, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341382 — Property damage at 30C Beachcroft Avenue, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions