What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5375084?

The tribunal order states: Wicjhita Holdings Pty Ltd must pay Toni Brooks, Damian Brooks and Ivor

How much money was awarded in case 5375084?

Compensation: Bottled Water: $164.85 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Filter Waterhouse test…: $42.45 awarded to tenant; Compensation: PASLR Water Testing: $607.45 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Studio leak - loss of…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: water filter testing k…: $29.95 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Watercare Laboratories…: $295.30 awarded to tenant

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375084?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13529135-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5375084?

The tribunal order states: Wicjhita Holdings Pty Ltd must pay Toni Brooks, Damian Brooks and Ivor

How much money was awarded in case 5375084?

Compensation: Bottled Water: $164.85 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Filter Waterhouse test…: $42.45 awarded to tenant; Compensation: PASLR Water Testing: $607.45 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Studio leak - loss of…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: water filter testing k…: $29.95 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Watercare Laboratories…: $295.30 awarded to tenant

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375084?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13529135-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

396 Sunnyside Road, Coatesville, RD 2, Coatesville 0792 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5375084 — Leaks

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5375084 — net $1,340.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: water filter testing kit	$29.95	water filter testing kit
Compensation: Watercare Laboratories testing kit	$295.30	Watercare Laboratories testing kit
Compensation: PASLR water testing	$607.45	PASLR water testing
Compensation: Filter Waterhouse testing kit	$42.45	Filter Waterhouse testing kit
Compensation: Bottled water	$164.85	Bottled water
Compensation: Studio leak - loss of use	$200.00	Studio leak - loss of use
Net award	$1,340.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,340.00

Both parties attended the hearing on 23 February 2026.

The tenancy was for a fixed term of one year from 13 September 2025 ending on 12 September 2026.

When the parties attended a Case Conference Hearing on 9 January 2026, the parties agreed to vary the tenancy from a fixed-term tenancy to a periodic tenancy. 5375084, 54209462

The tenant planned to vacate the tenancy on 4 March 2026.

The tenant claimed that there was E.coli in the drinking water, the self- contained studio being uninhabitable and for the loss and claimed for: a. $29.95 for water filter testing kit for testing (kitchen tap) b. $295.30 for Water care Laboratories testing kit (kitchen tap) c. $607.45 PASLR water testing for kitchen tap and 2 tanks; d. $42.45 for Filter Waterhouse testing kit (kitchen tap) e. $155.94 for bottled water up to 30 January 2026 f.$8.91 for bottled water from 14 February 2026 g. $26,400.00 being the total refund of the rent for 24 weeks h. $7,200.00 for the loss of use of the self-contained unit (calculated at market rental of $300.00 per week) i.$375.00 for the loss of the use of the swimming pool for 5 weeks from 24 January 2025 (calculated at $75.00 per week) j.$3,000.00 as compensation for the tenant’s son contracting H. pylori; k. $1,200.00 loss of income due to the Tribunal hearing; l.$1,000.00 for relocation costs.

The tenant also claimed that there were maintenance issues including: a. Persistent ant infestation throughout the home; b. Unsafe decking by the pool requiring urgent repair; c. Cracked window that remained unrepaired; d. Oven missing function and temperature symbols and some settings not being operational; e. Water leaks and moisture damage within the studio structure; and f.Potential electrical issues in the studio.

The landlord made a cross-application and claimed for: a. $140.00 for pool filter call out fee; b. $349.00 for electrical work; c. $580.00 for pool maintenance; d. $1,200.00 for compensation for loss of insurance claim for the damaged garage door; e. $150.00 for contractor call out for ant infestation; f.Compensation for having stressful tenants.

I deal with the tenant’s claims first. Tenant’s claims – E.coli in the water

I outline the summary in relation to the water situation at the premises.

About a month after the tenancy started, on 14 October 2025, the tenant emailed the property manager stating the gutters were full and that the water had an unpleasant taste. The tenant attached photos of the gutters in that email.

On 22 October 2025, the property manager emailed the tenant pointing out that tank water should be avoided for drinking purposes. The property 5375084, 54209463 manager wrote “regarding the tank water, clause 34 of the agreement advises against drinking it. For your information, the multi-stage filter was recently replaced as was the entire water pump system, and the gutters have been cleared twice in the past three months. If you choose to have the water tested by a licensed professional, you’re welcome to share the results for the landlord’s review.”

The tenant tested the kitchen tap water. On 3 November 2025, Water Care test kit results came back with an email notification informing the tenant that E.coli had been detected. This was forwarded on to the property manager.

On 4 November 2025, the landlord had the gutters cleaned. There was an invoice of $517.50 from Kiwi Magic Touch Ltd. It noted that that the main house gutter, down pipes, studio gutter and down pipes were cleaned and that the studio vinyl sheet was removed and disposed of. The floor was cleaned as well.

On 5 November 2025, the actual Water Care results were received by the tenant. This was forwarded on to the property manager.

On 6 November 2025, the tenant emailed the property manager “Thank you for the update on the oven. However, this is not my primary concern. I have spent 7.5 weeks showering, cleaning, and consuming water contaminated with faeces. I can only assume you were aware of this issue before my tenancy began, which is why the unlawful clause regarding the use of bottled water was added to the tenancy agreement. This matter should have been addressed by you two weeks ago when I first raised it. Still no response to an urgent issue except use bottled water!”

On 22 November 2025, the landlord sent a plumber to premises to put in new filters (annual change) and that the plumber confirmed that the whole house filtration system was working. There was an invoice for $385.00 from Patrick Plumbing and Gas Fitting Limited for replacing the filters on the water tank filtration unit.

On 3 December 2025, a new property manager met the tenant at premises and the new property manager arranged an independent water testing to be done by a certified company.

On 10 December 2025, All Clear Group Limited (“All Clear”) came to the premises to collect samples for testing. Samples were collected from the kitchen tap connected to the rainwater supply as well as from the two rainwater tanks and the swimming pool.

On 15 December 2025, All Clear issued its report. The summary of key findings were that there was E.coli found in water tank 2 only. Based on the findings, All Clear wrote the following recommendations: Consult a water filtration company to determine the appropriate filtration system for the property based on the findings within this report. This should include: •For bacterial/viral treatment: 5375084, 54209464 Ultraviolet disinfection (only effective in low turbidity waters) reverse osmosis or ultra-filtration. Sediment filters: Effectively remove any suspended particle (dirt, debris, or fine particulate matter) from the water to ensure other filters and water filtration devices can operate properly. •For low pH (and the extremely soft water) Neutralizing filter to help control pH levels. Consider disinfection (e.g. chlorine dosage) of the storage tank and reticulation lines following the installation of treatment/filtration systems, to remove any residual biological contaminants that may be present within the system. It is recommended to dose 5 mg/L chlorine and allow at least 24 hours before drinking. Chlorine levels should be below 0.5 mg/L before drinking.

The landlord sent the summary of the report to the tenant within 7 days of receiving the report.

On 20 December 2025, the landlord shut down tank 2 noting that that was the only problematic tank identified.

On 31 December 2025, the landlord organised for the waste chamber to be sucked out just in case it was connected with the water somehow.

On 9 January 2026, the Tenancy Tribunal case conference hearing took place.

On 19 January 2026, PASLR Crucial Services Ltd (“PASLR”) attended the premises and took 3 water samples from the kitchen tap, tank 1 and tank 2.

On 29 January 2026, results from PASLR came back and was forwarded to the property manager.

On 30 January 2026, the landlord organised water to be treated. Shock chlorination was done with two bottles per tank. The roof and gutters were cleared as well.

Based on the E.coli finding, the tenant sought for $26,400.00 refund of the total rent paid. The tenant said that this was due to the stress and trauma of living with E.coli. The tenants said that they were worried about getting sick in the shower, brushing teeth, having to have bottled water and not being able to have grandchildren over extended period of time due to E.coli did not allow the tenants to fully enjoy their stay. They had originally moved to this premises to be able to have the grandchildren around more often.

The tenant claimed that their adult son had contracted H. pylori. There was no medical evidence provided, there was no testing for H. pylori in the water and no evidence that E. coli caused H. pylori.

The landlord rebutted the tenant’s claims and questioned what periods the tenant would have been stressed. The landlord offered bottle water, testing by registered professionals came back and the landlord did everything the tenant had asked the landlord to do. At the continued emails and complaints made by the tenant, the owner emailed the tenant stating that they can break the fixed- 5375084, 54209465 term tenancy earlier. On 12 November 2025, the landlord emailed: “I confirm that I said I would consider a lease break should you choose to pursue that option, however so we are clear from the outset, may I please encourage you to investigate your Tenant obligations when breaking a fixed lease, as there are costs involved for you to do this.”

The landlord highlighted that there were photos of the tenant’s family enjoying the pool and the spa pool. The landlord questioned how the tenant can use the water and get a spa pool if they were really concerned about the water. and that their description of how the premises was inconsistent with their description on the business website about how lovely the place was.

The tenant responded that they were traumatised between the time when they received the Watercare E.coli notification on 3 November 2025 until the shock chlorine treatment on 30 January 2026. The tenant said that the spa pool has chemicals which would kill E.coli.

The tenant had a quote of $1,403.000 for the tank cleaning and treatment which was forwarded to the property manager on 1 December 2025. The tenant said that they could not do it themselves as they did not have funds.

The landlord said that the tank cleaning and treatment had already taken place on 22 November 2025 so did not need to be done again at the time.

The tenant acknowledged that they did know they could break the fixed-term contract and leave but that they thought the break-lease fee costs would be too high and did not leave earlier.

All Clear report 15 December 2025, had the following observations: a. No discolouration was noted within the water sample taken from the kitchen tap. b. Debris was noted within both water tanks (including within the water samples). c. Debris and insects were noted in the swimming pool (including within the water sample). d. No odour was noted within any of the water samples taken from the property. e. Two cartridge filters were noted on the exterior of the property, which, according to the tenants, were replaced four weeks ago. No UV light was present. f.There were no under-bench filters associated with the kitchen tap. g. It was noticed that the pool had a chlorinator. h. There was vegetation within the gutters, on the roof, and on one of the water tanks. According to the tenant, the gutters were cleaned five or six weeks ago. i.One water-holding tank was made of plastic, while the other was made of timber. The timber water tank is suspected to be older and used as an overflow tank. j.The roof appeared to be rusting. 5375084, 54209466 k. There were large trees overhanging the rainwater tanks. l.The temperature of the water at the point of sampling were 2.4-28.2 degrees Celsius. The Taumata Arowai Aesthetic Values for drinking water 2022 recommended a temperature of 15 degrees Celsius or less.

Having heard both parties and having read through the available material carefully, I grant the following amounts: a. $29.95 for water filter testing kit for testing (kitchen tap) b. $295.30 for Watercare Laboratories testing kit (kitchen tap) c. $607.45 PASLR water testing for kitchen tap and 2 tanks; d. $42.45 for Filter Waterhouse testing kit (kitchen tap) e. $155.94 for bottled water up to 30 January 2026 f.$8.91 for bottled water from 14 February 2026

I grant these as they did result in some findings that

However, I decline to grant the total refund of the rent. The tenants were advised to not drink from tank water. The landlord has an obligation to provide potable water and hence the costs for bottled water is reimbursed to the tenant. This was already offered by the landlord previously as well as the option of breaking the fixed-term tenancy earlier if they were not happy to live with the tank water as they were.

The only independent test that detected E. coli was the one conducted by PASLR. The landlord acted swiftly once that result was obtained.

Under section 49 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), the tenant has a duty to mitigate the damage or loss arising out from any breaches by the landlord. In this case, that would have been to take up the landlord’s offer to break the fixed-term tenancy earlier. The tenant cannot choose to stay and then try to claim for the total rent afterwards in that situation. I find that is evidence that the tenant did not suffer stress and trauma to the extent claimed by the tenant.

There is simply no evidence of the tenant’s adult son contracting H. pylori due to the E. coli in the water. This claim is dismissed. Loss of use of the self-contained unit

The tenant claimed $7,200.00 for the loss of use of the self-contained unit.

The original advertisement from Trade Me stated that the premises had 4 bedrooms. It stated: “Step into the spacious foyer, where on your left, you'll find the separate kitchen, dining, and living areas. The generous living space is filled with natural light and features beautiful kauri floors, with French doors that open onto the front deck and saltwater pool - creating an effortless indoor-outdoor flow, perfect for entertaining or relaxing. The well-appointed kitchen includes a walk-in pantry and is positioned for easy access to the outdoor entertaining area, 5375084, 54209467 complete with a BBQ space and peaceful rural views. Whether you're hosting friends or enjoying a family meal, the layout encourages connection and comfort. On the right side of the foyer, you’ll find the home’s bedroom wing. The huge master bedroom is tucked away for privacy and includes a walk-in wardrobe, ensuite, and direct access to the lawn area. The two additional double bedrooms are thoughtfully positioned to ensure space and comfort for family or guests. A dedicated office or study is also included, ideal for remote work or quiet focus. There is another lounge on this bedroom wing. There is a family bathroom - with separate shower box and bathtub as well as a laundry room.”

In relation to the self-contained unit, the advertisement stated: “A real bonus is the fully self-contained studio – complete with its own bathroom and private entry. This flexible space is perfect as a home office, teenager’s retreat, guest accommodation, or creative studio.”

About a month into the tenancy, on 15 October 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord asking for rent reduction citing that dampness and water issues were such that the studio was uninhabitable.

The landlord responded by saying that the studio was a “bonus” extra space, not part of the rental. The landlord relied on the fact that the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) assessment had taken place 4 weeks prior to the tenancy beginning that found no fault with the studio.

When the tenant raised the dampness and water issues, the landlord sent a plumber and issues were identified with the shower tray. That was attended replaced along with the flooring.

The tenant had also poked a hole in the wall which was fixed.

On 10 December 2025, when the property manager went to inspect, the entire gib was soft from moisture but there were no signs of mould. The landlord claimed that this supported the proposition that the shower leak issue was a recent fault that had caused the wall to get wet suddenly which was not a prolonged moisture issue.

The tenant said that the plumber had confirmed that the wastewater tray for the shower was never installed correctly which caused the issue. However, the photos of the studio did not show that the premises was obviously suffering from dampness or mould issues.

Having seen the photos of the premises and the self-contained studio, I do not find that even if it was out of action between when the shower leaked and when it was repaired, that it warrants a reimbursement of $300.00 per week. It was never advertised as a self-contained studio that could be sublet for rental income for the tenants. The $300.00 per week is not justified. 5375084, 54209468

The plumber repaired the studio on 15 October 2025. The invoice noted that the shower waste assembly was refixed and sealed. There was a comment on the invoice that stated: “after inspecting each fixture and running them in a manner where a leak could be detected it seems that the cause of this damage to the flooring and possible the surrounding walls as caused by the shower waste being incredibly loose to the point where it would be letting in lots of water to underneath the shower tray. I have sealed and re-screwed the shower waste back down tenants are aware to not use it for a couple of days.”

I do not consider the studio was just a “bonus” and not part of the tenancy. It was advertised to be a useable space for the tenant. I acknowledge that the studio was additional and not part of the main tenanted premises.

I order the landlord to reimburse the tenant $200.00 payment as a nominal loss of use due to the water leak issue. I find that the landlord has attended to the issue promptly when raised by the tenant. Loss of use of swimming pool

The tenant claimed for the loss of use of the swimming pool for 5 weeks from 24 January 2025 at a rate of $75.00 per week.

The tenant said that the chemicals were not reacting as they should, and the water turned green 2 to 3 days after they had been cleaned. A pool company came and inspected the pool which found that the pool sand filter required immediate attention. The pool filter and piping needed servicing or needed to be cleaned.

The tenant received a quote, and it was forwarded to the landlord.

The landlord highlighted that the tenancy agreement stipulated that the pool was the tenant’s responsibility. However, the landlord sent out the Pool Doctor technician in October and November 2025. The first time the landlord sent the technician was on 23 October 2025.

The landlord faulted the tenant for not keeping the pool full of water having the pool pump off for weeks. The landlord said that the tenant did not place any chemicals in the pool.

The tenant said that the pool was not serviced when they moved in, and they received the pool in the state that it was when the landlord’s pool technician came around the first time. The tenant had a photo of the pool from 16 September 2025 just 3 days after the tenancy began. The water was greenish. I accept that the pool itself was not provided in a reasonably clean state.

The tenant claimed that the pool was turning green due to issues with the skimmer box and the pool filter. The landlord claimed that it was due to the lack of maintenance by the tenant. If the issue was with the skimmer box and the pool filter, I would have granted the loss of use claim.

However, this is a matter where the tenant could not prove what the issue was with. As such, I am unable to grant any compensation for the loss of use of the pool. 5375084, 54209469 Other claims

The tenant claimed $1,200.00 loss of income while the hearing took place at the Tenancy Tribunal. The Tribunal does not order for compensation for loss of work or any preparation time for Tribunal matters. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.

The tenant’s claim for $1,000.00 relocation fees is also dismissed. There is simply no basis for this.

Regarding the maintenance issues raised, the evidence provided showed that they were attended to by the landlord reasonably. The landlord provided a good paper trail of the maintenance issues that were raised and attended to. These maintenance issues were part of the tenant’s initial application which did not make its way to the final list of claims for the hearing.

I do not make any other orders for the tenant. Landlord’s cross-application- pool filter call out

I now consider the landlord’s cross-application

The landlord claimed $140.00 for the pool filter call out.

The landlord sent out Pool Doctor to check the pool when the tenant emailed about the pool being green. The Pool Doctor confirmed that there was no issue with the pool. The comments by the Pool Doctor were “the tenant does not appear to be knowledgeable about operation/balancing of pool. They will need to engage a pool person to maintain pool.”

This was the first pool clean by the landlord’s contractor since the beginning of the tenancy. As I had found above, the pool was not provided in a clean state to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy.

The landlord could not prove when the pool was last cleaned or last serviced before the tenancy began. There is nothing wrong with the tenant asking the landlord about the pool being green when it was never provided in a clean state.

I dismiss the landlord’ claim for reimbursement. Electrical work

The landlord claimed $349.00 for electrical work done.

The tenant raised issues with about a burnt-out power point from the self- contained studio with the landlord. The tenant’s son was pulling on his PlayStation when he heard the socket buzzing. The tenant pulled the power point, but it came out off the wall entirely. From the photo provided it seemed that the socket electrical lines were burnt somewhat. Although the tenant raised this as an issue with the landlord, the tenant then went onto replace the power point himself. 5375084, 542094610

By the time the landlord’s electrician came out to the premises on 14 November 2025, there was nothing for the electrician to do for the power point except to test it for safety.

The invoiced amount was not just for testing the power point but for replacement of an existing oven. A new oven was in the carport and that had to be installed.

The invoiced amount was for attendance on site, 1 hour labour for one electrician and an apprentice. The electrical certificate or certificate of compliance was not going to be needed for the replaced power point but possibly for the oven if required.

It is simply not possible to ascertain whether if any of the $349.00 invoiced was for checking the power point.

Therefore, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for reimbursement for the electrical work done in checking the power point in the studio. Pool maintenance

The landlord claimed $580.00 for the pool cleaning done by NZ Swimming and Spa on 14 November 2025.

Although the pool maintenance was the tenant’s responsibility, the landlord became concerned that the pool was green, and the landlord arranged a contractor to make the pool blue again.

The tenant responded to this by saying that the pool was never provided clean in the first place, and that when the Pool Doctor came on 23 October 2025 they only tested and did not clean the pool. The Pool Doctor outlined steps that were needed to be taken only.

The tenant said that 14 November 2025 was when the pool was cleaned by the landlord’s contractors for the first time since the tenancy began.

The tenant did try to clean the pool leading up to 14 November 2025 to stop it from going putrid but could not get it blue themselves.

I accept the tenant’s evidence based on the photo of the pool taken from 16 September 2026 that the pool was not provided clean by the landlord and was only cleaned for the first time by the landlord’s contractor on 14 November 2025.

I accept that the tenant did try to clean the pool but could not. Whether this was a maintenance fault or pool parts fault remains unclear.

As neither party could prove who was at fault, I dismiss this claim also. The pool should have been provided cleaned in the first place and it was not. Had there been evidence of the pool being cleaned before the tenancy began or closer to when the tenancy began, the issue may have been able to be determined one way or the other. However, that was not the case. Garage door insurance loss 5375084, 542094611

The landlord claimed $1,200.00 for the denied insurance claim for the garage roller door.

The previous tenants had jammed the garage roller door. The tenant had removed the garage roller door and as the insurance assessor could not assess the garage roller door in situ, the insurance claim was denied.

The tenant said that they were never told by the property manager to not touch it. The tenant was told that a contractor will attend for “external appraisal” but there was no evidence of the tenant ever being told not to touch the garage door.

During the hearing, the property manager at the time was called as a witness. He recalled that the garage door required attention as one side had dropped a bit and that an assessor was coming out do an assessment. However, the witness could not recall ever telling the tenant not to touch the garage door.

I do not find that the tenant had been told adequately to not touch the garage roller door. It is not unusual for the tenant to take off the garage roller door if it is not being held in place properly. A loosely hanging garage roller door could have caused injury for the tenant. I do not find that the tenant is liable to pay for the denied insurance claim. Callout for ant infestation

The landlord claimed $150.00 for a contractor being called out for ant infestation.

On 15 September 2025, the tenant requested pest control. The landlord actioned this request promptly, but the tenant had already actioned it.

The tradesman texted the landlord “when I was there and ask tenant for pest control, she said she already sprayed for ants. There wasn’t any ants surrounding the property. I also asked for the rats bites she said there is no rats surrounding the property. So I don’t apply them. That’s why I didn’t charge anything for the pest control. I was returned the ant spray and rat bite.”

On 4 November 2025, the tenant raised the “ant infestation” issue again on a 14-day notice to the landlord. The tenant clarified that the handyman at the came with rat equipment and not ants.

The tenant maintained that the handyman only came for rats and did not come prepared for ants.

It is not ideal for the tenant to seek for contractors to come out and doing the work themselves before they arrive. The tenant should do the work and charge the landlord for it if need be or wait until the landlord’s contractors come. Otherwise, it is effectively wasting the landlord’s money as well as theirs and the contractor’s time.

However, I accept that the cost that the tenant bore in spraying for ants could have been on charged to the landlord. This effectively cancels out the costs. Therefore, I do not grant reimbursement for the callout for ant infestation. 5375084, 542094612 Compensation for having stressful tenants

The tenant claimed compensation for having stressful tenants.

This is not a claim that is considered by the Tribunal. This claim is dismissed. Name suppression

Both parties sought name suppression for themselves.

However, neither party wholly or substantially succeeded in their respective claims and no suppression orders are mandatory in those circumstances under section 95A RTA.

I find no justification or public interest in suppressing details. Therefore, no details are suppressed.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5375084 — net $1,340.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: water filter testing kit	$29.95	water filter testing kit
Compensation: Watercare Laboratories testing kit	$295.30	Watercare Laboratories testing kit
Compensation: PASLR water testing	$607.45	PASLR water testing
Compensation: Filter Waterhouse testing kit	$42.45	Filter Waterhouse testing kit
Compensation: Bottled water	$164.85	Bottled water
Compensation: Studio leak - loss of use	$200.00	Studio leak - loss of use
Net award	$1,340.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,340.00