What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5423923 about?

The tribunal order states: Shelter Realty Limited as agent for Kim Blewett must pay [The tenant/s] $4,728.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

How much money was awarded in case 5423923?

Compensation: Failure to maintain ho…: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain le…: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain so…: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5423923?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5423923?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13910591-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5423923 about?

The tribunal order states: Shelter Realty Limited as agent for Kim Blewett must pay [The tenant/s] $4,728.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

How much money was awarded in case 5423923?

Compensation: Failure to maintain ho…: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain le…: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain so…: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5423923?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5423923?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13910591-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 48 Coxhead Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5423923 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5423923 — net $4,728.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain (hole and soft flooring only	$1,000.00	78. Taking all of these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages.
Compensation: Failure to maintain hole in bathroom wall	$350.00	Failure to maintain hole in bathroom wall
Compensation: Failure to maintain soft flooring	$350.00	Failure to maintain soft flooring
Compensation: Failure to maintain leaks	$3,000.00	Failure to maintain leaks
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,728.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,728.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5423923 — net $4,728.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain (hole and soft flooring only	$1,000.00	78. Taking all of these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages.
Compensation: Failure to maintain hole in bathroom wall	$350.00	Failure to maintain hole in bathroom wall
Compensation: Failure to maintain soft flooring	$350.00	Failure to maintain soft flooring
Compensation: Failure to maintain leaks	$3,000.00	Failure to maintain leaks
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,728.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,728.00

Order

Shelter Realty Limited as agent for Kim Blewett must pay [The tenant/s] $4,728.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 2 June 2026, 12 June 2026 and 9 July 2026. Sunny Singh was the property manager for this tenancy and appeared on behalf of the landlord.
The tenancy began on 24 March 2025 and ended on 10 January 2026, following a significant leak in the ceiling. The leak occurred on 7 January 2026 and resulted in the ceiling caving in in one of the bedrooms. The tenant claims there were issues with prior leaks in the premises, which were not fixed properly and ultimately resulted in the leak in the ceiling. The tenant also claims that other areas of the premises were provided in a poor state of repair at the beginning of the tenancy. The sole issue I must determine, is whether the landlord failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Before determining this issue, I discuss some general legal principles that apply to the case.

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Standard of proof

As the applicant, the tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
A lot of evidence was given at the hearings. Whilst this decision might not refer to all of it, the parties can be assured I have considered it when reaching my decision. Compensation and exemplary damages – the law generally
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy, distress, inconvenience and emotional suffering.
The following factors are relevant when deciding to award compensation: 1 • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and deter. They are like a fine.
Under the RTA, exemplary damages may be ordered for certain defined, unlawful acts.
Section 109(3) RTA states that exemplary damages may be ordered if the Tribunal determines the unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just, having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
The District Court has held that the requirement of intention is not about whether the party was aware they were breaching the RTA. Rather, it is about whether they intended to do whatever it was they did or did not do. 2
A landlord cannot generally plead confusion, lack of knowledge, or ignorance of the law. In TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182, the landlord claimed they were not fully aware of their obligations. The District Court held: Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if 1 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. 2 Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00, DC Auckland, 01/05/2001. landlords were able to escape consequences or the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.
In summary, intention is proved where the party turns their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately sets out to commit it. It is unnecessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully. It is enough that they intended to commit the act which constitutes the unlawful act. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the obligation they have failed to perform, ignorance of the law is no defence. They are deemed to know the law, and therefore, failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional. Also, if the party is wilfully blind to the factual circumstances that give rise to an unlawful act, this may also be sufficient to prove they acted intentionally. Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? The law
Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires a landlord to 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 they are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
A landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy it. 3
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach. 4 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 5
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 6 3 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 4 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 5 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 6 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. Mould
The tenant claims there was an issue with mould underneath the kitchen sink.
Mr Singh claims there was no issue with mould at the premises.
The tenant submitted a photograph of underneath the kitchen sink. A very small amount of mould is present. I am not convinced this was a maintenance issue the landlord needed to address. It is far from the type of pervasive, black mould the Tribunal sometimes sees in ceilings and walls. The mould in this case could have been easily wiped away with a sponge or paper towel by the tenant.
This claim is dismissed. Hole/dent in bathroom wall Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims there was a hole in the bathroom wall at the beginning of the tenancy, which was not fixed by the end of the tenancy. The tenant submitted the following photograph:
Mr Singh claims the tenant’s description of the issue is incorrect. He says it is a “dent”, not a “hole.” Mr Singh accepts he was aware of the dent/hole at the beginning of the tenancy. Mr Singh claims that he advised the tenant of the issue before the tenant decided to rent the premises. He claims he told the tenant the problem was not able to be fixed, unless all four walls in the bathroom and hallway were removed. Mr Singh claims this was the advice he received from a builder. Analysis
It is not normal for internal walls to have moderate – large sized holes or dents in them. The hole/dent in the bathroom was a defect that needed to be repaired.
The landlord accepts they were aware of the problem from the beginning of the tenancy and indeed, the hole/dent appears in photographs taken as part of the entry inspection. I do not accept Mr Singh’s evidence that a builder investigated the issue and advised him that all four walls in the bathroom and hallway needed to be removed to repair the hole/dent. No evidence from the builder was submitted. The Tribunal deals with hundreds, if not thousands, of cases involving holes and dents in walls. A patch repair is nearly always able to be completed. Even if a patch repair was not possible and all four walls in the bathroom and hallway needed to be removed to complete a repair, the landlord should have done this.
The hole/dent was not fixed by the end of the tenancy on 10 January 2026. There is a delay of approximately 42 weeks between 24 March 2025 and 10 January 2026. A delay of this length is too long. For these reasons, I find the landlord breached section 45(1)(b) RTA.
The tenant seeks compensation. I find $350.00 reasonable, considering the following factors: a. The nature of the breach. Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is a serious breach, as evidenced by the fact that the maximum amount of exemplary damages that may be ordered is $7,200.00. 7 The breach in this case falls towards the lower end of the spectrum, because the problem is mostly visual and does not present an immediate health and safety risk. b. The duration of the breach. The breach endured for 42 weeks, which is a long time. c. The effect of the breach on the party. The hole/dent in the wall detracted from the amenity of the premises. Soft flooring in the living room and bathroom Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims that part of the flooring in the living room and bathroom was soft. They claim the floor dipped when weight was applied to it. The tenant submitted the following photographs: 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) & Schedule 1A.
The tenant sent Mr Singh a text message on 25 March 2025, advising him of the problem and sharing photographs. In their message, the tenant said: ...I found 2 holes in the floor 1 by the toilet and the other in the living room, will those be fixed and also the hole in my bathroom wall will that be fixed also?
The tenant claims nothing was done to investigate or remedy the soft flooring, which persisted until the end of the tenancy on 10 January 2026.
Mr Singh denies that the flooring is soft or dipping in the living room or bathroom. He says the problem in the living room is that the carpet does not attach to the skirting for approximately 1cm. In respect of the bathroom tiles, Mr Singh says there is a floorboard underneath the tiles and the problem is a lack of silicone between the tiles. Mr Singh claims this causes the tiles to lift. Mr Singh gave evidence that a builder and plumber visited the premises before the tenancy began to investigate the flooring in the living room and bathroom. Mr Singh gave evidence that these tradespeople verbally advised him that the floorboards were in good condition. Analysis
The photographs submitted by the tenant clearly show the flooring in the living room and bathroom dips down when weight is applied. In respect of the living room, a dip can be seen even when no weight is applied. The photographic evidence proves, on the balance of probabilities, that the flooring dipped in these areas. Mr Singh’s evidence that the flooring did not dip cannot be sustained in light of the photographs.
Flooring that dips when weight is applied, and certainly flooring that dips down when no weight is applied is not normal. It can sometimes be an indication of a current or prior leak in the plumbing underneath the house. On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced that the landlord sent a suitably qualified tradesperson to investigate the issue, either before the tenancy began or during the tenancy. No evidence from the plumber or builder whom Mr Singh claims visited the premises before the tenancy began was submitted.
I find the landlord became aware of the soft flooring on 25 March 2025 when the tenant sent them a text message. It was not investigated or fixed by the end of the tenancy on 10 January 2026. Soft flooring is something that needs to be investigated and fixed relatively quickly. In the worst case scenario, it can sometimes result in the floor collapsing. 8 There is delay of approximately 42 weeks between 25 March 2025 and 10 February 2026. A delay of this length is 8 See for example Tenant v Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent for Yitao (Ben) Wang [2026] NZTT 5333359. unreasonable. For these reasons, I find the landlord breached section 45(1)(b) RTA.
The tenant seeks compensation. I find $350.00 reasonable, considering the following factors: a. The nature of the breach. Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is a serious breach, as evidenced by the fact that the maximum amount of exemplary damages that may be ordered is $7,200.00. 9 The breach in this case is moderate. This is because soft flooring has the potential to collapse if the underlying problem is serious and remains unaddressed. The area of soft flooring in this case is relatively small and fortunately, it did not collapse. b. The duration of the breach. The breach endured for 42 weeks, which is a long time. c. The effect of the breach on the party. The soft flooring detracted from the amenity of the premises. It was also a cause of worry and concern for the tenant. Leaks Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant reported a leak underneath the kitchen sink to Mr Singh on 25 March 2025. A copy of the text message was submitted.
The tenant claims a tradesperson visited the premises to investigate the problem in early April 2025. They claim the leak underneath the sink was fixed however, another leak was identified behind the kitchen tiles, which was not fixed until 9 April 2025.
On 29 April 2025, the tenant noticed a leak outside the premises by the outdoor tap. The tenant claims water was leaking from behind the weatherboard cladding at the bottom of the house, not from the tap itself. The tenant submitted a photograph and copy of a text message sent to Mr Singh stating: Good morning just letting you know that the outside tap is leaking. The waters not coming from the tap it’s coming from under the house
The tenant claims a tradesperson was only sent to the premises on 25 June 2025 to repair the leak. 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) & Schedule 1A.
On 24 June 2025, the tenant raised a concern with Mr Singh regarding an external pipe in the soffit. The tenant believed it was exiting wastewater, because whenever they used the shower or washing machine, soapy residue would drip from the pipe onto the window.
On 19 July 2025, the tenant claims the external pipe was leaking a lot of water, not just a few drips like it usually did. The tenant sent Mr Singh a text message and video of the pipe. The tenant claims a tradesperson was sent to the premises to fix the problem on 23 July 2025.
On 6 January 2026, the tenant claims the external pipe was leaking heavily again. They advised Mr Singh about the problem and a tradesperson visited the premises the same day to fix it.
On 7 January 2026, at approximately 9:50pm, the ceiling in bedroom 1 collapsed due to a leak. The tenant claims water leaked all over their belongings. They claim they disconnected the water and electricity and sent Mr Singh photographs and videos of the problem. The tenant claims a tradesperson was sent to the premises on 8 January 2026, which is the same day the tenant gave notice to end the tenancy.
The tenant claims that all of the leaks are connected. They claim that the first few leaks at the premises were not fixed properly, which ultimately lead to the big leak on 7 January 2026, when the ceiling collapsed. Landlord’s evidence and submissions at the hearing on 2 June 2026
At the first hearing on 2 June 2026, Mr Singh gave evidence that a plumber visited the premises on 2 and 9 April 2025, in response to the tenant’s complaints about a leak underneath the sink.
Mr Singh submitted a copy of an invoice dated 3 April 2025 from “Homefix Group.” This is a trading name for the company “HSandhu Limited.” The invoice states the following: 1Maintenance Work Following our investigation, we’ve identified two sources of the leak. We successfully resolved one by replacing the gas kit on the pipe. However, the primary cause of the water leak appears to originate behind the tiles, which will require further work to prevent water from leaking outside the property.
Mr Singh submitted an invoice from Homefix Group dated 12 April 2025 in respect of the work undertaken behind the kitchen tiles. The invoice records that the tiles were removed, gib board cut and the leak repaired.
Regarding the external leak by the outdoor tap, which the tenant reported to Mr Singh on 29 April 2025, Mr Singh gave evidence that the leak was not coming from behind the weatherboard at the bottom of the house, but from the outdoor tap itself. Mr Singh gave evidence that he organised for a plumber to visit the premises between 2 and 5 May 2025 to investigate the issue. Mr Singh claims the plumber verbally advised him that the leak was due to the tap being old and leaking. Mr Singh claims the plumber did not invoice for this visit, because no leak was actually observed. Mr Singh claims the leak was due to the outdoor tap not being tightened enough.
Mr Singh gave evidence that he completed an inspection at the premises on 23 June 2025 and noticed a pool of water underneath the house. In response, Mr Singh gave evidence that he organised for a plumber to visit the premises on 24 June 2025. Mr Singh submitted an invoice from Homefix Group dated 30 June 2025. It states that two leaks were identified, one under the house and another from the garden tap supply pipe. The invoice records that both leaks have been repaired and “there should be no further issues with water leakage at the property.”
The Tribunal called the director of Homefix Group, Harpinder Sandhu, to give evidence about the repairs. Mr Sandhu gave evidence that Homefix Group is his company and specialises in property maintenance and repairs. He said that he uses 3 – 4 subcontractors, consisting of a range of electricians, painters and plumbers.
Mr Sandhu gave evidence that he recalled the work undertaken at the tenancy address regarding leaks. He said that the work was subcontracted to “All Plumbing Solutions.” Understandably, Mr Sandhu had not been expecting to give evidence on the day of the hearing and did not have the contact details for the attending plumber at hand.
Regarding the external pipe in the soffit, Mr Singh gave evidence the he visited the premises on 24 June 2025 and explained to the tenant that the pipe is an external hot water pipe. There is a hot water cylinder in the ceiling and the pipe drips excess water whenever the hot water is used. Mr Singh claims this is normal and the fact that a small amount of water was dripping from the pipe does not mean there was a leak.
In response to the text message sent by the tenant on 19 July 2025 regarding the external pipe leaking water that was more than just drips, Mr Singh gave evidence that he sent a plumber to the premises on 21 or 23 July 2025. An invoice from “Plumbing Guru Limited” was submitted. It is dated 23 July 2025 and states: Repaired a leaking water pipe inside the ceiling for hot water cylinder cold feed, the cause of the leak was a crack fitting
Mr Singh claims the same plumber visited the premises again on 6 January 2026, in response to the tenant’s advice that the external pipe was leaking again. An invoice was submitted, which states: Repaired leaking waterpipe inside the ceiling, the cause of the leak was a crack in the old black dux pipe
In response to the tenant’s advice that the ceiling caved in on 7 January 2026, Plumbing Guru Ltd were sent to the premises again on 8 January 2026. An invoice was submitted. It states: Repaired the old black burst pipe inside the ceiling, the pipe needs to be replaced, ceiling has been damaged.
The Tribunal called Shekar Datt Maharaj from Plumbing Guru Limited. Mr Maharaj gave evidence that he is a registered plumber and attended the leaks at the tenancy address. He said it is normal for old houses to have Black Dux Quest plumbing however, this type of plumbing is prone to leaking. Mr Maharaj confirmed that Black Dux Quest plumbing was present in the ceiling at the tenancy address. He confirmed his knowledge that Black Dux Quest is a product that will continue to leak if it is not replaced, because it is very old. Mr Maharaj said he was not surprised that the pipes leaked again on 6 and 7 January 2026, because there was a leak earlier on 23 July 2025. After the big leak on 7 January 2026, Mr Maharaj said that he advised the landlord to replace all of the Black Dux Quest piping in the ceiling, which they have since done.
Mr Maharaj gave evidence that he did not advise the landlord to replace the Black Dux Quest piping on 23 July 2025, because only the fitting was cracked, not the pipe. Mr Maharaj said that he only recommends full replacement of the pipes once the pipe cracks, not just the fitting. Mr Maharaj said this is because owners do not want to replace Black Dux Quest piping if there is no leak in the pipes, because it is a big job. Landlord’s evidence and submissions at the hearing on 9 July 2026
I adjourned the hearing on 2 June 2026, because I wanted to receive evidence from the plumber that Mr Sandhu said he subcontracted the work to, as well as the owner.
At the hearing on 9 July 2026, Mr Singh gave evidence that he had confirmed with Mr Sandhu that a plumber was not subcontracted to fix the leaks in the kitchen and underneath the house in April and June 2025. The Tribunal called Mr Sandhu again to ask some follow up questions. Mr Sandhu confirmed that a plumber was not subcontracted to attend the leaks. He gave evidence that the leak behind the kitchen tiles was in the piping. He said the pipe had a minor crack in it, which was cut out and replaced. Mr Sandhu described the piping behind the kitchen tiles as being black or grey in colour. When asked whether Mr Sandhu knew what Black Dux Quest piping was, he first said the piping was not Black Dux Quest, but later said he did not know what this was.
The owner, Kim Blewett, also attended the hearing. Ms Blewett gave evidence that she purchased the property in August or September 2021 as an investment. Ms Blewett said that when she purchased the property, it was not in good condition and she completed a renovation. Ms Blewett said she purchased the property with the assistance of a third party, who helped her with the due diligence. Ms Blewett could not remember whether a building report was obtained or any information she may have received about the state of the piping, including whether it was Black Dux Quest.
Mr Blewett gave evidence that she did not know whether the piping underneath the house had been replaced. She said she was not aware of a previous leak underneath the house that would have caused the flooring to become soft. Other than the leaks experienced at the premises during this tenancy, Ms Blewett said there had been no prior leaks since she purchased the property.
Ms Blewett gave evidence that she was aware there was Black Dux Quest piping in the ceiling, but was unsure whether it was present in any other part of the house. She said that she always gave her authorisation for repairs to be completed in a timely manner when contacted by Mr Singh. Ms Blewett said that she had spent a lot of money fixing leaks at the premises during the tenancy. Whilst she was sorry for what occurred to the tenant when the ceiling collapsed, Ms Blewett said she believed everything had been responded to quickly and properly during the tenancy.
Mr Singh gave evidence that any time he organised for a plumber to visit the premises during the tenancy, they checked the entire house for leaks, not just the leak they were sent to investigate. Analysis
The first issue I must determine is whether the leak reported to the landlord on 29 April 2025, was coming from behind the last weatherboard on the exterior of the premises, as claimed by the tenant, or from the outdoor tap, as claimed by Mr Singh. On the balance of probabilities, I find it was coming from behind the last weatherboard. My reasons for this are as follows: a. The tenant sent the landlord a text message on 29 April 2025 advising that the leak was not coming from the tap, but from under the house. The tenant was living in the premises at the time and best placed to observe the leak and where it was originating from. b. The tenant submitted a close up photograph of the leak. Droplets of water can be seen falling directly below the last weatherboard. The droplets appear close to the weatherboard. This supports the tenant’s claim that the leak was coming from behind the weatherboard, not the tap. c. Mr Singh did not submit any evidence to support his claim that a plumber visited the premises on 2 and 5 May 2025 to investigate the issue and confirmed that the leak was only coming from the outdoor tap. Plumbers usually charge a call out fee, even if no further work is required. No invoice was submitted. d. Two leaks were discovered underneath the house on 24 June 2025, including one in the supply pipe to the outdoor tap. This increases the likelihood that the leak reported by the tenant on 29 April 2025 was coming from the supply pipe and originating under the house, not the tap itself.
Having determined that the leak reported on 29 April 2025 was a genuine leak, not simply the outdoor tap dripping a small amount of water, a summary of all leaks at the premises during the tenancy is recorded below: Nature of the leakDate landlord became aware of leak Date investigated by landlord Date landlord claims the leak was fixed Underneath kitchen sink 25 March 2025 by text message from tenant. 2 April 2025 (Homefix Group sent to premises to investigate). 2 April 2025 by Homefix Group. Behind kitchen tiles2 April 2025. Discovered by Homefix Group. 2 April 2025 (Homefix Group sent to premises to investigate). 9 April 2025 by Homefix Group. Behind weatherboard by outdoor tap (discovered by Homefix Group to be a leak in the supply pipe for the outdoor tap on 25 June 2025) 29 April 2025 by text message from tenant. 24 or 25 June 2025 (Homefix Group sent to premises to investigate). 24 or 25 June 2025 by Homefix Group. Underneath the house. 23 June 2025 observed by Mr Singh during inspection. 24 or 25 June 2025 (Homefix Group sent to premises to investigate). 24 or 25 June 2025 by Homefix Group. Ceiling in pipe for hot water cylinder cold feed (first time 19 July 2025 by text message from tenant. 21 or 23 July 2025 (Plumbing Guru Limited sent to 21 or 23 July 2025 by Plumbing Guru Limited. external pipe in the soffit leaking water that was more than just drips) investigate). Leaking waterpipe in ceiling (second time external pipe in the soffit leaking water that was more than just drips) 6 January 2026 by text message from tenant. 6 January 2026 (Plumbing Guru Limited sent to investigate). 6 January 2026 by Plumbing Guru Limited. Leaking waterpipe in ceiling (ceiling collapses in bedroom 1) 7 January 2026 by text message from tenant. 8 January 2026 (Plumbing Guru Limited sent to investigate). 8 January 2026.
From this timeline, it can be seen there were a total of 7 leaks within a 10 month period.
By 19 July 2025, there had been 5 different leaks within 4 months. This is not normal and should reasonably have alerted the landlord to the likelihood that there was a more serious, underlying problem with the plumbing. Further investigation into the cause of the recurring leaks was required.
By treating each leak in isolation and hiring a handyman to investigate and complete repairs to the leaks in the pipes behind the kitchen tiles and underneath the house, I find the landlord breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA. This is because a plumber is a licensed tradesperson who specialises in the installation, repair, and maintenance of water supply, drainage, and sewage systems. A handyman, on the other hand, is a general repair professional who handles general property maintenance and odd jobs. A leak in the pipes inside the walls, ceiling or underneath the house must be investigated and repaired by a certified plumber. Indeed, a handyman, or any other person who is not authorised under the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006, to undertake sanitary plumbing and does so anyway, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000.00. 10 Because a certified plumber did not investigate and repair the leaks behind the kitchen tiles and underneath the house, I am not convinced that the cause of the leaks in these areas was properly identified or fixed.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that the landlord’s failure to properly investigate and repair the leaks behind the kitchen tiles and underneath the house resulted in further leaks developing in the pipes in the 10 Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006, section 123(1)(a). ceiling. I am not convinced that 7 leaks within a 10 month period is simply a coincidence or series of unfortunate events.
Black Dux Quest piping was found to be present in the ceiling on 21 or 23 July 2025 when Mr Maharaj from Plumbing Guru Ltd visited the premises and replaced a cracked fitting. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that Black Dux Quest plumbing was present in the kitchen and underneath the house as well. Mr Sandhu gave evidence that the pipes behind the kitchen tiles were black or grey, which is consistent with the appearance of Black Dux Quest. A photograph of a fitting from the kitchen was also submitted. It shows black piping, consistent with Black Dux Quest, attached to it, per the below:
The Tribunal is familiar with Black Dux Quest. 11 It is a known defective product which, due to its age and lifespan, is prone to leaks. As Mr Maharaj said in his evidence, once it leaks the first time, it is only a matter of time before it leaks again. It is common for Black Dux Quest to leak in one place first and then, following repairs, the same place or a different place altogether. The point is, once Black Dux Quest begins to leak, a proper repair requires full replacement of all Black Dux Quest piping. This is because it is not a matter of if, but when, it will leak again.
A handyman does not have the relevant knowledge and expertise to identify Black Dux Quest and recommend replacement when it leaks. Indeed, in his evidence, Mr Sandhu said that he does not know what Black Dux Quest is.
I also find that by only replacing the cracked fitting in the ceiling pipe on 21 or 23 July 2025, a proper repair was not completed. I do not accept Mr Maharaj’s evidence that Black Dux Quest only needs to be replaced once there is a leak in the actual pipe. Mr Maharaj said himself that he was not surprised that the pipe leaked again on 6 January 2026. 11 See for example, Tenant v Five AM Realty Limited as agent for Cheirn Chen Tsai (Ian) & Yu Lin Ku (Evelyn) Amny Lam NZTT 5316287.
For all of these reasons, I find the landlord did not properly investigate or repair the leaks underneath the house, behind the kitchen tiles or in the ceiling. In failing to do so, I find the landlord breached section 45(1)(b) RTA.
The tenant seeks compensation. Considering the following factors, I find $3,000.00 to be appropriate: a. Nature of the breach. Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is a serious breach, as evidenced by the fact that the maximum amount of exemplary damages that may be ordered is $7,200.00. 12 In this case, the breach falls towards the upper end of the spectrum in terms of seriousness. This is because recurring leaks are a serious maintenance issue, which if not investigated and repaired quickly and properly, have the potential to cause serious damage to the tenant’s belongings, as well as jeopardise their health and safety. b. Duration of the breach. The breach endured from 25 March 2025 to the end of the tenancy on 10 April 2026, which is just over one year. c. Effect of the breach on the other party. The breach had a profound impact on the tenant. The tenant was understandably concerned about the number and frequency of leaks during the tenancy. This alone, was a source of worry and stress for them. In the end, the ceiling in bedroom 1 collapsed unexpectedly late at night. Water and insulation from the ceiling spilled all over the tenant’s belongings. Mr Singh claims the tenant’s belongings were not damaged however, the photographs submitted by the tenant clearly show water and insulation all over their bed, chest of drawers and clothes, per the below: 12 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) & Schedule 1A. d. The tenant had to leave the premises immediately and without notice late at night, with young children. They had to move in with family and find a new house to rent. I do not accept Mr Singh’s submission that the tenant could have continued with the tenancy, because only one bedroom was affected. The damage to the ceiling was extensive and the underlying problem with the plumbing remained unfixed. The tenant was well within their rights to end the tenancy by giving 2 days’ notice under section 59(3) RTA or applying to the Tribunal to end the tenancy under section 59(4)(b).
In settling on $3,000.00 in compensation, I have also considered the rent paid by the tenant for the final week of the tenancy, as well as their claim that they incurred moving costs. No invoices for moving costs were submitted. The only invoices submitted were for a total of $139.50 for storage of the tenant’s belongings. The tenant also submitted advertisements of similar furniture items they claim were damaged from the leak however, the tenant’s furniture was not new at the time of the leak.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is an unlawful act, which carries a maximum amount of $7,200.00 in exemplary damages. I have found that the landlord breached their obligation under section 45(1)(b) in the following respects: a. Hole in the bathroom wall. b. Soft flooring in the living room and bathroom. c. Leaks in the premises.
To award exemplary damages, I must be satisfied that the landlord acted intentionally in each instance. I find the landlord acted intentionally in respect of the hole in the bathroom wall and soft flooring. This is because the landlord knew about these issues and did not properly investigate or fix them. I am not, however, convinced that the landlord acted intentionally in respect of the leaks. This is because, from the evidence given by Mr Singh at the hearing, it is clear he genuinely believed that Homefix Group subcontracted the repair work to a certified plumber. I find the landlord was entitled to rely on this representation by Homefix Group. Further, Mr Singh engaged a certified plumber, namely Mr Maharaj, to investigate the leak in the ceiling on 21 or 23 July 2025 and 6 January 2026. Mr Maharaj, despite giving evidence that he was aware that further leaks would occur after he replaced the cracked fitting and repaired the burst pipe, failed to give proper advice that full replacement of the Black Dux Quest piping was required to complete a proper repair. The landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise of Mr Maharaj and advice given.
For these reasons, I confine my assessment of exemplary damages to the issues concerning the hole in the bathroom wall and soft flooring in the living room.
I find it just to order exemplary damages for these matters, considering the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act. I find the landlord acted intentionally. b. The effect of the unlawful act. The hole in the bathroom and soft flooring detracted from the amenity of the premises. They were both a cause of worry and concern for the tenant. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. The tenant has an interest in living in premises that are in a reasonable state of repair. d. The public interest. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords are deterred from failing to investigate and fix moderate-large sized holes/dents in walls and soft flooring.
Taking all of these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenant has been wholly successful with their claim. Therefore, I must order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5423923 — Leaks at Unit/Flat 2, 48 Coxhead Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5423923 — Leaks at Unit/Flat 2, 48 Coxhead Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions