What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5371961 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 5371961?

Compensation: $275.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371961?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371961?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13266575-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5371961 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 5371961?

Compensation: $275.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371961?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371961?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13266575-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5371961 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5371961 — net $275.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – drainage issue	$275.00	Compensation – drainage issue
Net award	$275.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$275.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5371961 — net $275.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – drainage issue	$275.00	Compensation – drainage issue
Net award	$275.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$275.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details in any publication of this order.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $275.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation – drainage issue $275.00 Total award $275.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $275.00
The claim for failing to maintain windowsills is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This was a long-term tenancy. The tenant rented an upstairs unit in a block of seven units from the landlord from 2015 to 2025. He lived there with his wife and sister. The fixed term tenancy was renewed annually.
The tenant wished to end the fixed term tenancy early and he and his family moved out of the premises on 14 September 2025.
In October 2025 the Tribunal terminated the tenancy by consent and ordered payment of rent and outstanding water. The Adjudicator recorded in the order “28.The tenant says he also wants to file an application relating to the maintenance and condition of the property. 29.He has filed documentation in advance of this hearing but did not realise he needed to make his own application. 30.The tenant says he will do this in the next few days. 31.This can be pursued if desired and will be heard at a later date.”
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and seeks compensation.

Has the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Under section 45, a landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
The parties provided photographs of the premises which show an old brick block of units probably built in the 1960s.
Under section 40 tenants have a responsibility to notify the landlord of maintenance issues.
The tenant claimed that the landlord breached his obligation as follows:
Windowsills – (a)The tenant claimed that the windowsills were in need of painting and water leaked in to the premises. In support of this claim the tenant showed video footage of windowsills. (b)The landlord disputed this and stated that he had the premises reinspected for Healthy Homes Standards in 2025 and as a result of issues raised by the inspector, he arranged for repairs to a window latch and some window gaps. The landlord provided a copy of an invoice for the repairs done in August 2025 and an updated Healthy Homes Statement dated 16 September 2025. (c)Having considered the evidence I find that the tenant has failed to prove that the landlord failed to address maintenance issues with the windowsills for the following reasons: (i) There is no written evidence that the tenant advised the landlord of leaking or issues with the windowsills during the tenancy and no evidence provided by the tenant today of water ingress. (ii) The landlord has provided a recent Healthy Homes report and evidence that he addressed maintenance issues raised by the inspector in relation to windowsills. (iii)Having regard to the age of the premises I find that there is insufficient evidence the landlord has failed to maintain the windows in a reasonable state of repair.
Blocked drain- (a)The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to respond in a timely manner to an issue with a blocked drain at the premises. (b)The drainage is shared drainage due to multiple units at the premises. (c)The tenant stated that there was a blocked drain in July 2025 and sewerage overflowed onto the surrounding path and grass area. The owner of the downstairs unit arranged for [drain unblocking service] to attend and on 22 July 2025 the drain was unblocked and the area cleaned and sanitised. (d)On 4 August 2025 the tenant informed the landlord that the drain had blocked again and the landlord attended that day to investigate. (e)On 14 August 2025 the tenant informed the landlord by Whatsapp that again the drain had blocked stating, “Hi. The waste water outside is blocked again”. (f)The tenant claimed that the landlord did not remedy the blockage in a timely manner as the blockage was still there on 15 September 2025. (g)The tenant showed video footage of the blocked drain and overflow dated 19 August 2025 and again dated 15 September 2025. The tenant provided a copy of the Whatsapp communication between the parties which continues to 1 September 2025 where the tenant and landlord are communicating regarding making contact with the downstairs owner and the tenant is assisting the landlord with making contact. (h)The landlord disputed that he failed to respond to the issue. He stated that the issues was addressed promptly. He responded when the tenant messaged him and sought to make contact with the brother of the downstairs unit owner who had previously arranged for [drain unblocking service] to attend in July 2025. (i) There was a dispute regarding a telephone call that took place on 18 August 2025 where the landlord claims the tenant told him the blockage had cleared and the tenant denies this. As the video footage is dated 19 August 2025 and the written communication between the parties continues until 1 September 2025 regarding contacting the neighbour I find that it is more likely than not that the tenant still considered there was a problem to investigate. (j)The landlord provided a letter from the neighbour’s brother [redacted] who arranged the contractor in July 2025. The letter is dated 21 January 2026 and records that in July 2025 he discovered effluent overflowing the gully trap behind units 6 and 7 and arranged [drain unblocking service] to attend to clear the blockage. He records that the blockage was in the Buchan trap connection to the public sewer and that a cctv inspection revealed the line was in good condition and free from root intrusion. [The neighbour’s brother]’s letter then states “There was a subsequent blockage in October but this time I called Watercare services. The contractor told me that the blockage was a result of excessive stormwater getting into the public sewage system during a heavy downpour”. A screenshot of a Watercare callout on 29 October was provided. (k)The landlord advised that he also contacted [drain unblocking services] and provided a letter from them dated 10 October 2025. This letter stated that they had attended in July 2025 to unblock the sewer line. The letter stated, “In our opinion it’s the effluent from all properties that have contributed to the blockage as they all share the one Buchan, unfortunately [Tenancy address suppressed] buchan is at the lowest point and therefore, gets the overflow.” The letter recommends regular maintenance of the drains. (l) Having considered the evidence I find that the tenant has proved on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to maintain the drainage in a reasonable state of repair by failing to address an urgent maintenance issue in a timely manner for the following reasons: (i)Overflow of sewerage on a property is an urgent maintenance issue due to exposed effluent. (ii)The tenant notified the landlord that the drain had overflowed again on 4 and 14 August 2025. The landlord did not provide proof that he had remedied this issue or that contractors had attended to clean up and investigate prior to the tenants moving out on 14 September 2025. This is a delay of over four weeks. (iii)The lack of a 14-day notice from a tenant does not negate the landlord’s responsibility to remedy maintenance issues. I am satisfied that the tenant complied with their obligation to notify the landlord of the problem. (iv)The letter from the neighbouring owner’s brother states that he took action in October 2025, however, this was after the tenants had left the premises. (v)Although there are multiple units at this site the evidence given by both parties confirmed that units 6 and 7 are the most affected and therefore the landlord had a responsibility to act urgently to remedy the issue when notified by the tenant of the problem recurring.

Should compensation by awarded to the tenant?

The Tribunal can order a landlord to pay such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any provision of the Residential Tenancies Act (section 77(2)(n)).
The tenant seeks reimbursement of the rent ordered by the previous Adjudicator, however, that claim has already been determined by the Tribunal and relates to a period mostly after 14 September 2025.
The Tribunal can order the landlord to pay compensation for the effects of this breach on the tenant. Rather than out of pocket expenses this compensation is in the nature of general damages for the inconvenience and effects of living in a property where there is exposed effluent outside. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to make such award pursuant to section 77(2)(n) of the Act: Eayrs v Hindmarsh, DC Wellington, TT223/93, 12 November 1993. Awards of compensation are generally modest.
The tenant showed video evidence of the exposed effluent on the path and grass around the drain. He stated that although they lived upstairs they were affected by the smell and also affected when they went to outside to use the clothesline as they had to pass by the exposed sewage. I find that the delay in remedying the blockage affected the tenant’s use of and enjoyment of the premises. I allow 48 hours for the landlord to arrange an urgent plumber and order compensation for the delay from 7 August 2025 until the tenants left the premises on 14 September 2025. I have taken in to account the submissions of both parties including the landlord’s ongoing communication with the tenant and the premises being upstairs but also the effects of exposed effluent on the ground below and order the landlord to pay the amount of $50 per week for the 5 1/2 weeks totalling $275.00.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord seeks name suppression. Having considered the factors in this case including the length of this tenancy, the previous goodwill between the parties and the nature of this issue the Tribunal finds that the interests of the parties outweigh the public interest in their identities being published and orders suppression of all party identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371961 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371961 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Should compensation by awarded to the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Should compensation by awarded to the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions