What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5412635 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both

How much money was awarded in case 5412635?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5412635?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5412635?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13549563-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5412635 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both

How much money was awarded in case 5412635?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5412635?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5412635?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13549563-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5412635 — Leaks

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 8 April 2025.
The tenancy was from 3 July 2021 until 8 January 2026.
The tenant claimed for compensation for an issue with the tenant’s toilet. The tenant claimed that the landlord has not remedied the issue appropriately resulting in an E. coli issue in the apartment.
The tenant also said that the termination notice given by the landlord was retaliatory.
The tenant sought a total compensation of $5,000.00 from the landlord.
The landlord opposed the tenant’s claims.
On 25 November 2025, water leaked from behind the toilet. The tenant informed the landlord, and the landlord sent a contractor promptly. The contractor came as a witness to the hearing to give evidence regarding this.
The contractor said that there was a bit of flooding in the bathroom when he attended. He had called a plumber to get it sorted but the plumber said that drain technician was required as the flooding was due to the drain being blocked. In the end, the drains were unclogged and a new toilet was installed.
The cleaning team came and sanitised the place. Water extraction machine was used for the bathroom and the nearby carpet. Dehumidifier was put on.
The contractor said that he did not see any change in colour with the water. The water that had flooded the bathroom was clear and the contractor told the landlord that the flooding looked like clean water. The landlord checked with contractor twice that it was not contaminated water. The contractor told the landlord that it was not contaminated water.
At the hearing, I enquired whether the contractor had done any testing to confirm that the water was “white water” and not “black water”. The contractor said that he said it was “white water” to the landlord because the water was clear in colour. The contractor confirmed that there was no testing done to confirm whether the water was not contaminated.
The following day on 26 November 2025, the tenant said that there was another leak just past midnight. The tenant informed the landlord about this around 8 am. The landlord sent the contract again but when the contractor went, he found that everything looked normal and found no leak anywhere. He sanitised the floors and carpets again. He then packed up the dehumidifiers and left. There was an invoice for the callout for the second day but not for any repairs as there was no need for further repairs.
The tenant raised issues with the landlord claiming that the flooding was with contaminated water. The landlord relied on the assessment of the contractor and claimed that it was clean water.
The tenant had insurance and the insurance assessor came to have the premises tested. On 2 December 2025, Biodet Services Limited confirmed presence of E. coli in the samples taken from the flooded area.
The results were sent to the tenant’s insurance company, and they accepted her insurance claim. Actual loss from the contamination had already been covered by the tenant’s insurance company.
The legal issue in this case is whether there is an obligation on the landlord to question and go beyond the advice of the contractor who attended the premises for the flooding. The contractor was a professional in the field, and the advice the landlord received was that the water was clean water and not black water.
The landlord checked this twice with the contractor. The landlord was told twice that there was no contamination.
I do not find that any onus should be placed on the landlord to go beyond the advice of the professional contractor. The landlord cannot be faulted for relying on their advice.
In relation to the termination notice, the landlord served the tenant 90-day termination notice on 28 November 2025. The landlord explained that it was for renovations. Asbestos removal was booked for 8 April 2026 and other renovation work was to follow afterwards.
After receiving the termination notice, the tenant issued a 21-days termination notice on the landlord on 17 December 2022. The tenant spent 4 nights in the hospital during Christmas. I note this in the order as a way of background only.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant said that the termination notice was given after a “slightly heated discussion” regarding the leak in the bathroom.
The landlord explained that the termination notice was not given in retaliation of anything. The landlord owned all 21 units, and seven units had already been renovated. Two tenants were placed in temporary accommodations while asbestos was being removed form their units. Their units were not subject to renovations. The tenant confirmed that other units had undergone renovations.
The landlord said that this unit happened to be next in line for renovation and the tenancy had to be terminated.
I accept the explanation given by the landlord. I do not find that the termination was given in retaliation. Regarding the leak in the bathroom, the landlord attended to it immediately. Accordingly, I dismiss the tenant’s claims.
However, I order name suppression for both parties as there is public interest in both names being suppressed given that neither party was at fault with what has happened with this tenancy.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 8 April 2025.

The tenancy was from 3 July 2021 until 8 January 2026.

The tenant claimed for compensation for an issue with the tenant’s toilet. The tenant claimed that the landlord has not remedied the issue appropriately resulting in an E. coli issue in the apartment.

The tenant also said that the termination notice given by the landlord was retaliatory.

The tenant sought a total compensation of $5,000.00 from the landlord.

The landlord opposed the tenant’s claims.

On 25 November 2025, water leaked from behind the toilet. The tenant informed the landlord, and the landlord sent a contractor promptly. The contractor came as a witness to the hearing to give evidence regarding this.

The contractor said that there was a bit of flooding in the bathroom when he attended. He had called a plumber to get it sorted but the plumber said that drain technician was required as the flooding was due to the drain being blocked. In the end, the drains were unclogged and a new toilet was installed.

The cleaning team came and sanitised the place. Water extraction machine was used for the bathroom and the nearby carpet. Dehumidifier was put on.

The contractor said that he did not see any change in colour with the water. The water that had flooded the bathroom was clear and the contractor told the landlord that the flooding looked like clean water. The landlord checked with contractor twice that it was not contaminated water. The contractor told the landlord that it was not contaminated water.

At the hearing, I enquired whether the contractor had done any testing to confirm that the water was “white water” and not “black water”. The contractor said that he said it was “white water” to the landlord because the water was clear in colour. The contractor confirmed that there was no testing done to confirm whether the water was not contaminated.

The following day on 26 November 2025, the tenant said that there was another leak just past midnight. The tenant informed the landlord about this around 8 am. The landlord sent the contract again but when the contractor went, he found that everything looked normal and found no leak anywhere. He sanitised the floors and carpets again. He then packed up the dehumidifiers and left. There was an invoice for the callout for the second day but not for any repairs as there was no need for further repairs.

The tenant raised issues with the landlord claiming that the flooding was with contaminated water. The landlord relied on the assessment of the contractor and claimed that it was clean water.

The tenant had insurance and the insurance assessor came to have the premises tested. On 2 December 2025, Biodet Services Limited confirmed presence of E. coli in the samples taken from the flooded area.

The results were sent to the tenant’s insurance company, and they accepted her insurance claim. Actual loss from the contamination had already been covered by the tenant’s insurance company.

The legal issue in this case is whether there is an obligation on the landlord to question and go beyond the advice of the contractor who attended the premises for the flooding. The contractor was a professional in the field, and the advice the landlord received was that the water was clean water and not black water.

The landlord checked this twice with the contractor. The landlord was told twice that there was no contamination.

I do not find that any onus should be placed on the landlord to go beyond the advice of the professional contractor. The landlord cannot be faulted for relying on their advice.

In relation to the termination notice, the landlord served the tenant 90-day termination notice on 28 November 2025. The landlord explained that it was for renovations. Asbestos removal was booked for 8 April 2026 and other renovation work was to follow afterwards.

After receiving the termination notice, the tenant issued a 21-days termination notice on the landlord on 17 December 2022. The tenant spent 4 nights in the hospital during Christmas. I note this in the order as a way of background only.

For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant said that the termination notice was given after a “slightly heated discussion” regarding the leak in the bathroom.

The landlord explained that the termination notice was not given in retaliation of anything. The landlord owned all 21 units, and seven units had already been renovated. Two tenants were placed in temporary accommodations while asbestos was being removed form their units. Their units were not subject to renovations. The tenant confirmed that other units had undergone renovations.

The landlord said that this unit happened to be next in line for renovation and the tenancy had to be terminated.

I accept the explanation given by the landlord. I do not find that the termination was given in retaliation. Regarding the leak in the bathroom, the landlord attended to it immediately. Accordingly, I dismiss the tenant’s claims.

However, I order name suppression for both parties as there is public interest in both names being suppressed given that neither party was at fault with what has happened with this tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5412635 — Leaks

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5412635 — Leaks

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions