What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5418088 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Apartment 1006, 38A Liverpool Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5418088?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418088?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418088?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12936393-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5418088 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Apartment 1006, 38A Liverpool Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5418088?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418088?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418088?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12936393-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Apartment 1006, 38A Liverpool Street, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5418088 — Mould & damp

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Apartment 1006, 38A Liverpool Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010, Life Apartments has been terminated, and possession is granted to Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited immediately.
Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited may enforce the possession order immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant. The landlord seeks possession of the premises, following the issuance of a termination notice, ending the tenancy due to destruction of the premises, in particular, damage caused by a water leak arising from the tenant’s replacement of a shower fitting in her unit.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 21 November 2024. The sole tenant is [The tenant/s], and the landlord is Home in Place (New Zealand) Limited. The tenancy is in an apartment complex on the 10 th floor.
As will be set out further below, in December 2025 there was a water leak and flooding. The evidence is that this arose from the tenant removing and replacing a shower fitting, which has caused water to flow down internal walls, causing flooding to lower levels of the complex.
Once the cause of the leak was found, the shower fitting was removed, and the plumber capped off the pipe, because they were not sure if the pipe inside the wall had been damaged.
On 15 December 2025 the landlord issued a 7-day termination notice, ending the tenancy on the grounds that the premises were uninhabitable given: a. There was no shower in the unit. b. Mould is developing in the walls and unit. c. The carpet was wet and required replacement d. Dehumidifiers are needed to run 24 hours to dry the premises. e. Extensive remediation is needed, including the removal of wall linings and flooring.
The landlord advised that it did not consider the premises would be habitable while that work was being undertaken.
On 18 December 2025, the contractor who was undertaking the remediation work to the premises emailed the landlord advising that the tenant had removed the cap from the plumbing, and reinstalled her shower fitting, causing further flooding. The contractor advised that they had removed their drying equipment from the apartment because the tenant would keep turning it off, and given the level of moisture, its use presented a safety risk. The contractor advised: Our recommendation: This apartment now poses a severe health risk to the tenant and is uninhabitable...there are high levels of risk electrical and health concerns. Due to the delay in drying the apartment there will be active microbial and bacterial growth in the apartment. The apartment must be vacated as soon as possible with immediate removal of affected Gib, insulation, carpet , and underlay to ensure health and safety, and prevent potential contamination spread to other apartments and levels.
The notice required the tenant to vacate the premises by 23 December 2025.
A video hearing was convened on 7 January 2026. Mr Bagga attended for the landlord, there was no appearance by the tenant. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

The landlord seeks a return of the premises.
The landlord states that a call was made on 7 December 2025, about a water leak at level 1. Following investigation, the landlord found the leak arising from level 10, and in particular, room 1006 – this tenancy.
On investigation, the landlord found that the tenant had changed the shower fitting, and when the shower was turned on, the water leaked down the internal wall. The landlord found that the tenant had not properly installed the shower fitting, causing the leak.
The plumber recommended that the shower be capped until they could properly assess if there had been damage to the pipe in the internal wall.
However, the tenant removed the cap and installed her shower fitting again on or about 18 December, which caused further flooding in the complex.
The landlord states that the work needed to the premises cannot be completed with the tenant in the premises, noting that the tenant would turn off the contractor’s drying equipment, and further, given the extent of the water damage, the premises are not healthy to live in.
The landlord notes that there is video footage showing the tenant removing a drying unit from corridor, which is now missing (that video was shown at the hearing).
The landlord considers it will take around three months for the work to be completed.

TENANTS CLAIMS

There was no appearance by the tenant at the hearing. I do not know the position she takes on this application.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

ANALYSIS

The landlord seeks a return of the premises, or to put that another way, to have a possession order.
Section 59 of the RTA relates to the destruction of premises, and confirms that a landlord can give notice ending the tenancy, if the premises have been destroyed or are otherwise uninhabitable: Destruction of premises (1) Where, otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed-term tenancy or a periodic tenancy), the premises are destroyed, or are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable,— (a) the rent shall abate accordingly; and (b) either party may give notice to the other terminating the tenancy. (2) Where a landlord gives notice of termination under subsection (1), the period of notice shall be not less than 7 days. (3) Where a tenant gives notice of termination under subsection (1), the period of notice shall be not less than 2 days. (4). Where, otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement, the premises are partially destroyed, or part of the premises is so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable,— (a) the rent shall abate accordingly; and (b) either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy, and the Tribunal may make such an order if it is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to reinstate the property or (as the case may require) to require the tenant to continue with the tenancy albeit at a reduced rent.
In this case, the landlord has given the tenant a notice terminating the tenancy under section 59(1). Given the evidence available, I agree with the landlord that the premises are ‘so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable’. The damage appears extensive, and given this is an apartment, it would not be reasonable to expect the work required could be undertaken with the tenant still living there. Further, I accept that given the water damage, the premises are likely to be unsafe and unhealthy, further reason the premises are uninhabitable.
Given the tenant remains in possession, I order that possession return to the landlord immediately.
I record for completeness, that even if I considered this as an application for termination of the tenancy, I would have ordered a termination under section 56, on the basis that the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement by acting in a way to cause damage to the tenancy, which certainly when the plumbing cap was removed, would be intentional damage (because the tenant must have known the damage would result). That damage is not capable of remedy. The breach would be of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable to refuse termination.
Give the extent of the damage, the risk to the complex and anyone living in this unit, I have also ordered that the possession order can be enforced immediately.
Section 138 of the District Court Act 2016 holds that normally an order cannot be enforced until 48 hours have expired, unless a “Judge grants leave”. However, section 106(2) of the RTA which relates to enforcement of possession orders, and confirms that reference to a ‘Judge’ in section 138(1) applies as if it were reference to a Tenancy Adjudicator.
This is a case where it is appropriate that leave be granted for the immediate enforcement of the possession order.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Apartment 1006, 38A Liverpool Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010, Life Apartments has been terminated, and possession is granted to Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited immediately.
Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited may enforce the possession order immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant. The landlord seeks possession of the premises, following the issuance of a termination notice, ending the tenancy due to destruction of the premises, in particular, damage caused by a water leak arising from the tenant’s replacement of a shower fitting in her unit.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 21 November 2024. The sole tenant is [The tenant/s], and the landlord is Home in Place (New Zealand) Limited. The tenancy is in an apartment complex on the 10 th floor.
As will be set out further below, in December 2025 there was a water leak and flooding. The evidence is that this arose from the tenant removing and replacing a shower fitting, which has caused water to flow down internal walls, causing flooding to lower levels of the complex.
Once the cause of the leak was found, the shower fitting was removed, and the plumber capped off the pipe, because they were not sure if the pipe inside the wall had been damaged.
On 15 December 2025 the landlord issued a 7-day termination notice, ending the tenancy on the grounds that the premises were uninhabitable given: a. There was no shower in the unit. b. Mould is developing in the walls and unit. c. The carpet was wet and required replacement d. Dehumidifiers are needed to run 24 hours to dry the premises. e. Extensive remediation is needed, including the removal of wall linings and flooring.
The landlord advised that it did not consider the premises would be habitable while that work was being undertaken.
On 18 December 2025, the contractor who was undertaking the remediation work to the premises emailed the landlord advising that the tenant had removed the cap from the plumbing, and reinstalled her shower fitting, causing further flooding. The contractor advised that they had removed their drying equipment from the apartment because the tenant would keep turning it off, and given the level of moisture, its use presented a safety risk. The contractor advised: Our recommendation: This apartment now poses a severe health risk to the tenant and is uninhabitable...there are high levels of risk electrical and health concerns. Due to the delay in drying the apartment there will be active microbial and bacterial growth in the apartment. The apartment must be vacated as soon as possible with immediate removal of affected Gib, insulation, carpet , and underlay to ensure health and safety, and prevent potential contamination spread to other apartments and levels.
The notice required the tenant to vacate the premises by 23 December 2025.
A video hearing was convened on 7 January 2026. Mr Bagga attended for the landlord, there was no appearance by the tenant. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

The landlord seeks a return of the premises.
The landlord states that a call was made on 7 December 2025, about a water leak at level 1. Following investigation, the landlord found the leak arising from level 10, and in particular, room 1006 – this tenancy.
On investigation, the landlord found that the tenant had changed the shower fitting, and when the shower was turned on, the water leaked down the internal wall. The landlord found that the tenant had not properly installed the shower fitting, causing the leak.
The plumber recommended that the shower be capped until they could properly assess if there had been damage to the pipe in the internal wall.
However, the tenant removed the cap and installed her shower fitting again on or about 18 December, which caused further flooding in the complex.
The landlord states that the work needed to the premises cannot be completed with the tenant in the premises, noting that the tenant would turn off the contractor’s drying equipment, and further, given the extent of the water damage, the premises are not healthy to live in.
The landlord notes that there is video footage showing the tenant removing a drying unit from corridor, which is now missing (that video was shown at the hearing).
The landlord considers it will take around three months for the work to be completed.

TENANTS CLAIMS

There was no appearance by the tenant at the hearing. I do not know the position she takes on this application.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

ANALYSIS

The landlord seeks a return of the premises, or to put that another way, to have a possession order.
Section 59 of the RTA relates to the destruction of premises, and confirms that a landlord can give notice ending the tenancy, if the premises have been destroyed or are otherwise uninhabitable: Destruction of premises (1) Where, otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed-term tenancy or a periodic tenancy), the premises are destroyed, or are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable,— (a) the rent shall abate accordingly; and (b) either party may give notice to the other terminating the tenancy. (2) Where a landlord gives notice of termination under subsection (1), the period of notice shall be not less than 7 days. (3) Where a tenant gives notice of termination under subsection (1), the period of notice shall be not less than 2 days. (4). Where, otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement, the premises are partially destroyed, or part of the premises is so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable,— (a) the rent shall abate accordingly; and (b) either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy, and the Tribunal may make such an order if it is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to reinstate the property or (as the case may require) to require the tenant to continue with the tenancy albeit at a reduced rent.
In this case, the landlord has given the tenant a notice terminating the tenancy under section 59(1). Given the evidence available, I agree with the landlord that the premises are ‘so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable’. The damage appears extensive, and given this is an apartment, it would not be reasonable to expect the work required could be undertaken with the tenant still living there. Further, I accept that given the water damage, the premises are likely to be unsafe and unhealthy, further reason the premises are uninhabitable.
Given the tenant remains in possession, I order that possession return to the landlord immediately.
I record for completeness, that even if I considered this as an application for termination of the tenancy, I would have ordered a termination under section 56, on the basis that the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement by acting in a way to cause damage to the tenancy, which certainly when the plumbing cap was removed, would be intentional damage (because the tenant must have known the damage would result). That damage is not capable of remedy. The breach would be of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable to refuse termination.
Give the extent of the damage, the risk to the complex and anyone living in this unit, I have also ordered that the possession order can be enforced immediately.
Section 138 of the District Court Act 2016 holds that normally an order cannot be enforced until 48 hours have expired, unless a “Judge grants leave”. However, section 106(2) of the RTA which relates to enforcement of possession orders, and confirms that reference to a ‘Judge’ in section 138(1) applies as if it were reference to a Tenancy Adjudicator.
This is a case where it is appropriate that leave be granted for the immediate enforcement of the possession order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418088 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat Apartment 1006, 38A Liverpool Street, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418088 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat Apartment 1006, 38A Liverpool Street, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions