What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5359674 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 5359674?

The Tribunal Orders Suppression Of T…: $400.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359674?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359674?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13686746-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5359674 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 5359674?

The Tribunal Orders Suppression Of T…: $400.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359674?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359674?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13686746-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

58D Shakespeare Street, Greymouth 7805 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5359674 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5359674 — net $400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities must p	$400.00	the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities must p
Net award	$400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$400.00

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended in person. The landlord’s representative attended by telephone.

The tenant claims compensation and exemplary damages for breach of her right to quiet enjoyment in her use of the premises and for breach of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

The landlord denies any breach and says that the claims should be dismissed. Background

This tenancy began in March 2022, and it is continuing.

Shortly after the tenant moved into the premises, she had a visit from a plumber who had been instructed to attend to an issue with the water supply to the laundry. It was an issue that had been identified before the tenancy began and the landlord had not given the tenant any notice of the visit.

The tenant allowed the plumber in and, as he was there, she mentioned an issue she was having with the hot water supply generally. The plumber ran the hot water and seemed satisfied that because there was hot water, there was not a problem.

After the visit, the tenant complained to the landlord about the plumber’s conduct during the visit. She said that he was angry and raised his voice. She made it clear that she did not want that plumber or any plumber from the same company to be used for work at the premises again. The landlord agreed not to instruct that company in the future for work at the premises.

In relation to this application, the tenant has described the plumber’s conduct in more detail. She has said that he told her that she “was not the only f****** Kainga Ora tenant that he had to deal with” and that he called her friend a “f****** retard”.

A short time later the tenant reported a problem with the water supply in the laundry. She said that there was hot water only for the washing machine. The landlord instructed a contractor who attended and reported that the two pipes supplying water for the washing machine were wrongly identified so that the hot water pipe supplied cold water and vice versa.

The plumber made it so only cold water would be supplied to the washing machine.

In April 2022 the tenant reported a problem with the hot water cylinder. A plumber came and replaced the thermostat and the tempering valve although it seems that there was no obvious evidence that they were faulty.

The tenant reported that the problem persisted, and in May 2022, the landlord replaced the cylinder.

The tenant said that between 2022 and 2024 the water was overheating, and her electricity bills were high. She said that the water temperature at the taps was 59.9°C. Her father had an infra-red meter, and he measured the water temperature over a period of months. She said the elevated water temperature created a risk of scalding, especially for her young son.

The next time that the tenant reported an issue with the hot water was in April/May 2025 when she said that the hot water was too hot. A plumber came and the evidence of what happened at that time and subsequently is perplexing.

The tenant said that the plumber told her that he had not been instructed to attend to the cylinder but rather only the laundry. He said that he could not do anything about the cylinder without a work order to do so.

There are messages between the tenant and “Switched On” (SWO) which is a business that the landlord uses to find and instruct contractors to attend to maintenance of their rental properties. The landlord described SWO as like project managers.

In these messages, the tenant explained that the contractor would not attend to the cylinder because it was not in the work order.

SWO said that the landlord’s work order was vague. The tenant said that her report to the landlord could not have been clearer about the cylinder. SWO said, in effect, that they would sort it out. They didn’t do so, and nothing happened until October when the tenant contacted them again. SWO said that they could not assist because it was a complaint, and the tenant would have to take it up with the landlord.

The landlord’s records from that time show that they gave clear instructions to SWO about the cylinder and that after the callout, they reported that both the cylinder and the sink issues had been resolved.

I have no reason to doubt the tenant’s account of what happened, and it well supported by the messages that passed between her and SWO. It seems clear that the tenant was let down by SWO who failed to do as they should have done, namely, to ensure that the reported issue with the hot water cylinder was seen to.

After the tenant reported the problem again to the landlord, they sent a plumber who, on 17 September 2025, again replaced the thermostat. The tenant said that it helped, but that the water temperature remained too high. The plumber returned and replaced the tempering valve on 29 October. The tenant said that the plumber told her that the valve was jammed. This resolved the problem.

The tenant believes that the problem with the water temperature goes back to 2022, and that the tempering valve should have been replaced then. She believes that her power bills have been elevated since then, but the situation became much worse after May 2025. Relevant Law

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. That means that the tenant must prove that the factual bases for her claims are more likely than not to be true.

Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) a landlord must, among other things, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00

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.

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.

Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. Quiet Enjoyment

The landlord points out that the tenant did not report the extreme nature of the plumber’s conduct at the time. She referred to rudeness. The language used by the plumber as reported by the tenant much later goes well beyond that. Such language directed at the tenant and her friend is well beyond unacceptable. The landlord suggests that the fact that it was not reported at the time casts doubt upon the reliability of the tenant’s evidence now. The tenant says that she did not feel the need to describe it fully at the time.

The landlord makes a reasonable point. Even if the tenant did not want to repeat the words that the plumber used, I would have expected her language to be stronger and more explicit.

But I accept that the tenant was very upset by the plumber’s language and demeanour and that his behaviour was, at the very least, inappropriate.

The reason I dismiss this claim does not relate to the nature of the plumber’s conduct. It relates to the extent of the landlord’s obligations. The landlord had instructed the plumbing firm to attend at the premises to attend to an issue in the laundry. The firm and therefore the plumber are the landlords’ agent in these circumstances. But a landlord is not responsible for everything that an agent may do in these circumstances. He is expected to act within his agency which was to comply with the work order he was issued with. His conduct towards the tenant and her friend, whatever form it took, was outside that agency and the landlord is not responsible for it.

There was another incident where the plumber contacted the tenant. There is no evidence that it had anything to do with the landlord. The tenant told him that she did not want him doing work any work at the premises and was fine with that. That exchange has nothing to do with the landlord.

The tenant is very unhappy that there has been no resolution to this. She asked the landlord to take her complaint to the plumbing firm, but she has not received any notice of an outcome concerning that. She says that there has been no accountability. That is unfortunate and I can understand her frustration. But I do not see this as something the Tribunal can resolve. I have found that the landlord was not to blame for the situation. At most the landlord could be criticised for failing to hold the plumber and the plumbing firm to account for the plumber’s offensive behaviour. But it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to penalise the landlord for that or require them to pay the tenant compensation. The Hot Water

The tenant asserts that there was a longstanding problem with the hot water cylinder in that it was overheating the water or at least delivering over heated water to the taps in the premises. She relies on her water bills to prove that her power costs were unreasonably high especially after May 2025 and that in turn is evidence of the overheating problem.

But I have compared the tenant’s power bills for the relevant period in 2024 and 2025 and I have found that the electricity usage (i.e. kwh) was less in 2025 than in 2024. The landlord has, independently of me, come to the same conclusion.

Plainly this tends to undermine the tenant’s claim that there was a problem with the water cylinder overheating the water.

The tenant also relies on measurements of the water temperature taken by her father using an infra-red digital thermometer. That is a device that measures the surface temperature of the water without being immersed in it.

I do not regard that evidence as being reliable. I have no way of knowing how accurate those measurements were. The devices themselves are not as accurate as conventional thermometers. I do not know whether it was being used correctly. There was no evidence from the tenant’s father. And of course, the tenant’s father is not independent. I am not casting any aspersions on him in saying that. It is simply a fact that makes his evidence less reliable than say an independent plumber.

My assessment of the evidence is that there were problems with the water supply at the premises and they took time to resolve. That can happen to the best of landlords. It can happen to anyone. But, aside from one aspect, the evidence does not establish that the landlord has failed in its obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair or to comply with relevant health and safety standards.

The one aspect that I do find proved relates to the four months between May 2025 and September 2025 (when a plumber attended) during which the tenant was waiting for SWO to arrange for another work order to be raised. They were the landlord’s agents in terms of maintenance and the tenant was justified in relying on them to arrange for a plumber to return to the premises to investigate the problem that she had reported. They failed to do so and that failure sheets home to the landlord.

It seems that the tenant had some health problems at that time and that may explain why she did not follow up on the issue. In any case, she had done what she reasonably could to report the problem, and it rested with the landlord to respond.

Regardless of what I found regarding the tenant’s claim generally, I accept that her concern about the temperature of the water was genuine, and she was entitled to have it investigated within a reasonable length of time. The failure to do so entitles her to an award of compensation. I asses that at $100 per month and so I have awarded the sum of $400.

There is no justification for an award of exemplary damages. There was no wilful breach by the landlord. Filing Fee

The tenant has had limited success, and I make no award of the filing fee. Suppression

The default position in this case is for no suppression of the tenant’s name. But I acknowledge that due to past trauma she is vulnerable and that naming her could have adverse consequences that displace the principle of open justice. I therefore grant her name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5359674 — net $400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities must p	$400.00	the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities must p
Net award	$400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$400.00