What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5392265 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 5392265?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $2,970.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5392265?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5392265?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13709809-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5392265 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 5392265?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $2,970.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5392265?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5392265?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13709809-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5392265 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5392265 — net $2,998.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$2,970.00	Loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,998.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,998.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5392265 — net $2,998.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$2,970.00	Loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,998.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,998.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
City Of Lights (Wn) Limited Suresh Patel must pay [The tenant/s] $2,998.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place over two days on 19 March 2026 and 21 April 2026. One of the tenants, appeared for both. The tenant who appeared is a licensed building practitioner. Claims
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) to maintain the premises with wastewater leaks occurring at the premises at intermittent intervals over the course of the tenancy. In an interim order dated, 19 March 2026, I made work orders, and the parties confirmed at the last hearing, that the issues are now fixed. However, the tenants seek compensation and exemplary damages for the alleged failure by the landlord to fix the problems sooner. Background
The premises are located on a sloping section and are identified by street number 55A. Above the premises is a two-storey house containing two flats. The top flat is street number 55, and the bottom flat is street number 55B. There is a pathway at the rear of these premises alongside a retaining wall and garden area which is downhill from Flats 55 and 55B. All three properties share a pedestrian pathway, and they are all owned by this same landlord.
There is no dispute that there have been several leaks from sewer/wastewater drainage pipes servicing 55 and 55B, the effect of which has been to cause wastewater and/or sewage to run down the retaining wall area and pool on the exterior pathway at the rear of these premises. The tenants say that this posed a serious health and safety hazard with the presence of faecal matter and a persistent odour. Because the rear pathway runs underneath the kitchen windows, the odour emanating from the pooled wastewater meant that they could not ventilate the house by opening the windows at times.
The dispute between the parties is not about whether the leaks occurred but whether the landlord responded to the leaks in a reasonable time frame and took appropriate steps to address the leaks.
The tenants complain that the landlord delayed repairs; did not properly oversee maintenance work carried out by contractors; allowed repairs to be done sporadically and without effective scope and investigation; failed to ensure a permanent solution; allowed the issue to continue over 3 years; and left the tenants exposed to repeated sewage and wastewater leaks. Overall, they claim the repairs were reactive, partial and ineffective.
The landlord says that he responded promptly to the issues when notified by the tenants; engaged multiple professional plumbing and drainage contractors over several years; authorised extensive excavation work and replacement of damaged pipes; authorised the installation of new drainage components including gully traps and re-routing of sewer pipes; and attended the site to investigate (he lives in Auckland). He says that he relied on and followed the advice of professional contractors to diagnose and repair technical drainage issues. On that basis, he maintains that he took reasonable and responsible steps to investigate and address the issues.

Did the landlord comply with their maintenance obligations?

The Law

A landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. 1
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. 2
Landlords are liable for defects they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire that knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 3 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage.... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: “....the obligation of the landlord under s45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is......depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be...” 4
Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation. 5
Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs. 6
Notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair, or the need for repair is apparent from observation. 7 The exterior leaks-facts and findings
There were a series of exterior leaks at the premises from drainage pipes serving flats 55 and 55B. I have reviewed all the evidence submitted by the parties including their email communications. From that evidence I have distilled 1 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 2 Section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA 3 Stewart Benson, Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18 4 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Limited DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 5 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as LJ Hooker [2015] TT 2845 6 Section 40(1)(d) RTA 7 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey, DC Auckland CIV 2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 the following chronology. In relation to each series of leaks, I consider whether the landlord breached his obligation to investigate and repair them.
First leak event 24 June 2022: The tenant first reported the issue of smelly water running down the bank and pooling on the path behind the premises after heavy rain. The tenant believed that there might be a burst pipe or overflow caused by a blockage from the house above as the water seemed to be coming from the retaining wall. 24 June 2022: The landlord thought this had happened before and asked the tenant to monitor for 2 weeks and, if not improved, to organise a plumber. 13 July 2022: A camera assessment arranged by the tenants confirmed a dislocated sewage pipe. 17 July 2022: The tenant confirmed the presence of faecal matter under the exterior heat pump, and contaminated water around the path and running down the hill. 18 July 2022: The landlord confirmed that another plumber and drainlayer had been to the property to do a temporary fix and would be returning to resolve it. He gave the tenant the contractor’s telephone number. 21 July 2022: The landlord confirmed that repair work would be completed early the next week and take 2-3 days. 6 August 2022: The plumber fixed the issue by replacing the affected pipe.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord took steps to address the first leaks by engaging plumbers and drainlayers and/or giving the tenant authority to contact them directly to assess the problem and carry out drainage repairs at Flats 55/55B. While there was some delay, the first series of leaks were fixed by 7 August.
I also find that the parties agreed to a rent reduction which amply compensated the tenant for the loss of amenity and inconvenience caused by the exterior leaks. The correspondence between the parties shows that the landlord agreed to a 50% rent reduction for 3 weeks. The tenant sought a rent reduction from 13 July until 7 August, which is 3 weeks and 4 days. I find that the landlord did not agree to this, but a fourth rent reduction was applied by the tenants and the landlord has not pursued the tenants for the underpayment of rent. The total rent rebate received by the tenants was $1,520.
In summary, I find that the landlord took reasonable steps to address the leaks and there is no breach by the landlord of s45(1)(b) RTA for which compensation may be awarded.
However, while I find no breach of s45, the tenants are nevertheless entitled to some compensation for the loss of amenity suffered.
It is well accepted when awarding compensation that, so far as money can do it, the injured party should be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach/loss not occurred. Appellate courts have advised of the need to adopt a global approach when considering awards. The assessment of the proper amount of compensation is a question of fact in each case; it is not an exact science, and a commonsense approach is required. There are no general or absolute rules for calculating the amount, but the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.
The tenants are entitled to the full use of all the amenities of the premises for which they are paying rent and should be compensated for any loss of amenity caused other than through their fault. The tenants have had to live with the inconvenience and unsanitary impact of the wastewater/sewage leaks (the odour and presence of faecal matter) which has interfered with their use of the property for which they are paying rent. However, I consider that the rent reduction received by the tenants already amply compensates them, and I make no further award.
Second leak event 11 September 2022: The tenant advised that wastewater was still pooling on the back path from the house above. 12 September 2022: The landlord asked the plumber to complete the work required. The plumber responded that he found a sinkhole running through the retaining wall. He provided a quote for the work to mark out the hole; to cut the concrete, replace old pipes and relay the concrete. The landlord authorised the work immediately. 17 September 2022: The plumber advised the landlord that the repairs were “All sorted now.” 27 September 2022: The tenant reported that the leak was still not fixed and provided a photo of the area. The landlord confirmed that the plumber was finding the issue difficult to resolve and was seeking assistance from another contractor. 10 October 2022: The landlord advised the tenant that the plumber had investigated and sorted the issue. The plumber revisited the camera footage and assured the landlord there were no other leaks. They believed the water run off was from the planter area near the wall. 10 October 2022: The tenant advised the landlord that the plumber’s advice was contrary to a discussion he had with the plumber in which it was agreed that the water was not rainwater but a leak because it was present all the time, not just after rain. He noted that the wastewater pipe from the top flat bathroom had not been inspected and was the likely cause. He suggested that he arrange another plumber to assess. The landlord agreed to the tenant taking that step, noting he wanted to get to the bottom of it. 28 October 2022; The tenant conducted his own investigation, including pouring yellow dye down the neighbouring drains, which showed a leak still present. 31 October 2022; The tenant confirmed he had found another drainlayer company to quote for repairs. However, it seems that he then suggested he do the work. 16 November 2022: The tenant reported completion of the work he undertook at the landlord’s cost. He recorded that the leak was found and 10m of clay pipes replaced. He also cleaned and back-filled the retaining wall in one location. He confirmed that the leak had been sewage as shown in photos taken at the time.
In relation to the above second leak event, I find that the plumber/drainlayer instructed to investigate and repair the issues was having difficulty assessing the cause of the leaks and the best remedy. I do not find any evidence that the landlord limited the scope of the investigation or somehow impeded or delayed resolution of the issue.
The tenant was a licensed building practitioner with relevant knowledge and suggested that he arrange another plumber. The landlord agreed. There is some delay in resolving this second set of leaks but that appears to be because the tenant took on the onus of finding a plumber/drainlayer and then investigated the matter himself. He also ended up doing the work himself for which the landlord reimbursed him.
By this time the landlord had paid plumbers $2,700 and paid the tenant just over $1,700 for the further works.
In the circumstances, I consider that the landlord took reasonable steps to address the matter and is not in breach of his obligations under s45(1)(b) RTA for the second leak events.
In terms of whether the tenants should be compensated for the further loss of amenity, I consider that the rent rebate already received is sufficient. For the periods of 13 July to 7 August and 12 September to 16 November (approximately 12 weeks) rent was payable of $9,120. The rent rebate received of $1520 represents just over a 16% rebate which I consider is reasonable.
Third leak event 3 December 2022: The tenant reported leaks from the remaining clay pipes again, with water pooling on the back path. He asked the landlord whether they could meet to discuss. Nothing further appeared to happen until early 2023. 5 February 2023: The tenants emailed the landlord acknowledging that the plumber visited the site the previous week (late January 2023). They requested an update. The landlord promised to follow up. Evidently, the plumber instructed by the landlord did not return, and the landlord engaged a second plumber/drainlayer. 18 February 2023: Still waiting for a response, the tenants served a 14-day notice on the landlord to remedy further leaks pooling on the rear pathway at the premises. They suspected the leaks were coming from the bathroom drains at flats 55 and 55B and the main water supply pipe for flat 55. 4 March 2023: The tenants advised the landlord that they were extremely happy to see that the sewage leaks had been taken care of in the last 2 weeks. However, they asked if the water main leak had been assessed. The landlord said he would follow up. 4 April 2023: The tenants noted that they were still waiting to hear about the water main leak. The landlord said it was being looked at by the plumber and suggested the tenant contact the plumber direct. 21 April 2023: The tenants acknowledged that they were satisfied with work done by this point. They say that the bottom flat 55B was vacant for most of the following year so there were no water leak issues.
After the original plumber looked at the leak in late January 2023, he never returned. Following service of the 14-day notice on 18 February, the landlord acted promptly to engage other contractors to resolve the issues.
Invoices produced by the landlord show contractors attending the site on 20 February with CCTV cameras and again on 28 February to investigate. Following this, the second plumbing/drainage company attended to complete significant sewer drain work as follows: excavate and expose the sewer clay pipe; replace the damaged clay pipe with PVC pipe; bed drain with drainage metal and backfill; re-route the sewer drain and reinstatement of concrete. The landlord was charged just over $5,500 for this work.
There is a significant delay between the tenant reporting this further leak on 3 December 2022 and the landlord’s plumber attending the premises in late January 2023 to assess. Further delay occurred until the tenant issued a 14-day notice on 18 February. I consider the delays are unreasonable and the landlord should have acted with more urgency, particularly as there had already been a sewage/wastewater leak, which presents an unsanitary health risk. Therefore, I find that the landlord was in breach of his obligation to investigate and remedy this third series of leaks in a timely manner. The tenant is entitled to compensation for this breach and the loss of amenity suffered as a result.
For the period from 3 December 2022 until 21 April 2023 (approximately 20 weeks), I award compensation of $1,520 which is approximately 10% of the rent paid. However, I make this a global award recognising that the most urgent work with the sewer pipes was completed by late February -early March 2023.
Fourth leak event 22 February 2024: New tenants moved into Flat 55B. The tenants notified the landlord that there was a new leak in the same spot on the back path and asked that he instruct plumbers. The tenants say a plumber inspected but decided it was minor and no repair work was undertaken. The tenants say that there were intermittent leaks over the course of the next year, but no sludge or smell so they did not complain to the landlord.
There is insufficient evidence to prove any ongoing issue and failure to address this incident by the landlord, because no complaints were made by the tenants. Therefore, I find no breach by the landlord of his obligations under s45(1)(b) RTA for this leak event.
Fifth leak event 11 May 2025: The tenant advised the landlord that there was a leak at 55B that was causing sludge to run down the path. The tenant believed the leak was coming from the shower at 55B. The tenant also issued a 14 day notice to remedy the issue. The landlord replied confirming that work would be starting on 23 May.
The tenant stated at the hearing that the landlord was renovating 55B and the issue was solved for a while.
Again, there is insufficient evidence to prove any ongoing issue and failure to address this incident by the landlord, because no complaints were made by the tenants. Therefore, I find no breach by the landlord of his obligations under s45(1)(b) RTA for this leak event
Sixth leak event 9 November 2025: The tenants advised the landlord that there was still dirty water with foam coming onto the back path (as shown in photos) and asked him to send a plumber. 18 November 2025: No response was received from the landlord and the tenants served a 14-day notice. 4 December 2025: A third plumber/drainlayer contractor attended Flats 55/55B to investigate and inspect the sewer drains with a CCTV camera, and water test the drainage system with dye. 15 December: The landlord apologised for failing to respond to the tenant because he had been overseas. He advised that he had instructed a plumbing firm who were sending him a plan. 13 January 2026: The plumber’s report concerning 55 and 55B advised as follows: We have conducted CCTV inspections on both sides of the property through the gully traps and inspection cleaning eyes. This did not reveal any obvious damage or signs of concern. We also used drain dye and flooded the drains on both sides; however, after 30 minutes no dye had appeared. We pushed the camera through to the inspection cap in the garden of the property below and still found no evidence of a leak. We did notice one area where the earthenware drain and new PVC drain connect, where a plumbquick appears to have slipped. However, the drainlayer has run a new drain and clipped it to the wall, effectively bypassing that earthenware section. We returned the next day to check for dye, but none was visible. I have advised the client to obtain a water sample for testing. Determining if there is sewage contamination is a crucial next step to narrow the search. I also informed the client that while we can reline the area in question, there is no guarantee this will resolve the issue. We understand the urgency of this matter and agree that potential effluent seepage is unacceptable. However, until we receive test results, it is impossible to pinpoint the exact source. 20 January 2026: The landlord obtained a report from Hills Laboratories concerning a water test they arranged on 9 January as recommended by their plumbers. The test showed the presence of e-coli at a level of <24,200 MPN/100ml against an acceptable level of 1. The test related to acceptable levels for drinking water. The lab report advised that the results should be treated with caution because the age of the sample was unknown, and it is required to be less than 24 hours old for testing purposes. Also, the sample was above 10°c and the sample temperature should be less than 10°c for testing purposes. The tenant also had a sample tested with the same results. The landlord says that the test results must be treated with caution because of the age and temperature limitations. He also says that the lab only tested a single microbiological parameter which does not conclusively establish the presence or source of sewage contamination. Accordingly, the report should not be treated as definitive evidence of sewage contamination. 21 January and 26 February 2026: The landlord’s plumbers carried out works to the property at 55/55B as follows: drain testing toilet in middle house (55B); excavation around the gully trap; removal of damaged wastewater pipe sections; installation of a new gully dish and trap; reconnection of kitchen and vanity waste pipes; and dye testing of the repaired drainage system. The contractor confirmed that they allowed the dye testing to settle for 2 hours and when they returned to site no dye had appeared indicating that the drainage system was functioning correctly with no leaks. 3 March 2026: The landlord advised the tenant that the drain work had been completed and asked him to confirm that the issue had improved. The tenant advised that the leak had not improved, and he had cleaned the back path a week prior because the smell was getting bad. He also sent a photo of dye present in a pool of water on the back path taken on 26 February, the same day that the contractors had finished their repairs. The landlord sent him the contractors report about the dye test on 26 February in which they said it did not leak onto the back path. The tenant noted that his photo was taken about
30pm that day, likely after the plumbers left. 5 March 2026: Wellington Water inspected Flats 55/55B and issued a notice to fix the private wastewater drainage system at 55, It stated that the wastewater pipes were not effectively capturing and conveying wastewater to the public network. The landlord sent Council an email from the registered drainlayer confirming the work completed by 26 February and the dye test. In this email, the drainlayer also recorded that a crack through the gully trap may have caused sewage to leak down to the premises below. However, it appears that the landlord did not at this stage advise the plumber that the tenant had seen dye on his back path on 26 February, which indicates that there was still a problem with the drains. 19 March 2026: Council emailed the landlord again advising that they were still receiving reports of wastewater seepage and queried whether the other lateral from the north side of the house had been checked/repaired. 19 March 2026: The Tribunal made work orders requiring the landlord to check the issues raised by Council and address further leaking reported by the tenant. The landlord arranged for the plumbers to attend immediately on 19 March. They flooded the drains at Flat 55 for approximately 4 hours. No active leak was visible. However, they subsequently discovered a pipe on the south side of Flat 55 that appeared deliberately sliced. The damage was repaired and after further inspection, there were no other visible leaks or cracked pipework. The leaks appeared to have stopped, and the tenant confirmed that the puddling had ceased. 6 April 2026: The landlord asked the tenant for an update on the leak situation. The tenant reported that it had been drying out nicely, but a leak reappeared the previous day. The landlord immediately instructed the plumber to attend. 16 April 2026: The plumber noted that the water flow observed on the back path was not consistent with the original leak that had previously been identified. He recommended cutting through the concrete and stairs at Flat 55 to gain visual access to the sanitary drains. 20 April 2026: During the plumber’s invasive investigation, they found no leaking pipework; no pipe cracks or other damage. However, they observed water gushing from another location and traced it to a kitchen waste underneath Flat 55 that had become disconnected. The plumber advised that this issue was not present during any of the earlier visits. The pipe was repaired and reinstated, after which further dye testing and pressure testing was carried out. No leaks were detected. 21 April 2026: The tenant confirmed at the second Tribunal hearing that the leaks have been rectified.
I am satisfied on the evidence that there was significant delay between the tenant reporting the leak on 9 November 2025 and the landlord arranging a plumber to attend on 4 December for an initial investigation. There was then a further delay before works commenced in the New year. I consider the landlord should have acted sooner.
I am satisfied that while the water testing results might not be conclusive evidence of sewer contamination, neither can it be completely ruled out. The landlord’s own plumber stated in his email to council that a crack through the gully trap may have caused sewage to leak down to the premises.
It is not clear why the works undertaken In 2026 were more than a month apart, given the potential sewage leak. The plumbers invoice shows that they attended on 21 January, then 26 February. It was only on 26 February that dye testing was done to check that the drains were operating correctly.
I consider the landlord was remiss in not advising the plumbers that the tenant had observed dye coloured water on his path on 26 February, which was an indication a leak was still present. This should have been checked well before 19 March, when I made work orders. I am satisfied that repairs conducted from 20 March onwards, related to new issues unrelated to the original leak.
Overall, I find that the landlord failefd to investigate and repair this final series of leaks in a reasonable timeframe. There are various periods, as detailed above, where he should have acted with more urgency. Therefore, the landlord was in breach of his obligations under s45(1)(b) RTA for which the tenant is entitled to compensation.
After carefully considering all the circumstances, I make a global award of $1,450 for the loss of amenity suffered by the tenants, which represents a rate rebate of approximately 10% for the period from 9 November 2025 to 20 March 2026 (just under 19 weeks). Overall approach to compensation
The tenants submitted in their updated application on 20 December 2025 that compensation of $13,756 should be awarded. This was calculated at a rate of 10% of the rent from the date of the first leak in 2022 to the date of the application (a period of 181 weeks).
The tenants argue that this award is justified because the problem was virtually continuous. They claim that the landlord failed to have his plumbers conduct an in-depth investigation and ensure a permanent fix which resulted in repeated leaks for over 3 years, leaving the tenants exposed to sewage and wastewater leaks for months on end.
The tenants raised issue with the landlord’s handling of their complaints about the neighbours breaching their quiet enjoyment. They say the landlord failed to act reasonably and did not meet his obligations in a timely manner. They did not wish to pursue a claim concerning this issue but raised it to show a broader pattern of landlord negligence when undertaking his responsibilities which is relevant when considering how he dealt with the leaks. However, I am not persuaded that the handling of a quiet enjoyment complaint is relevant when considering a claim against the landlord for maintenance breaches. I have focused solely on the evidence presented regarding the landlord’s handling of the leaks.
The tenant also provided a written statement detailing other maintenance issues affecting Flats 55 and 55B. However, as he acknowledged in his statement, his observations should not be read as a formal inspection report as he did not carry out a full building inspection, invasive testing or compliance assessment. In that regard, his statement cannot be given great weight. Again, I have focused solely on the evidence relevant to the leaks.
While I have found that the landlord should have acted more quickly at times, overall, he responded to the complaints and engaged qualified contractors to investigate and remedy. There is insufficient evidence to prove that the landlord limited the scope of investigations and is responsible for failing to come up with a permanent solution faster. Often, he also gave the tenant “carte blanche” to arrange/contact contractors directly. I consider that he reasonably relied on advice from qualified professionals, and I do not find a pattern of neglect or failure to act.
Leaks can be difficult to diagnose, and it is often a process of elimination. I am satisfied that was the case here.
I also consider that the overall award is fair and reasonable having regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case which I am obliged to apply. 8

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

I have made some findings that the landlord breached his obligations under s45(1)(b) RTA. Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 9 8 See section 85(2) RTA 9 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. 10
I consider that the failure to fix the various leaks in a reasonable timeframe was not intentional and an award of exemplary damages is not justified. Overall, the landlord investigated the issues and took steps to remedy the problems, albeit some delay occurred.
As the tenants have substantially succeeded in their claims against the landlord, they are entitled to suppression of their names and identifying details. They are also entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5392265 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5392265 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord comply with their maintenance obligations?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord comply with their maintenance obligations?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions