What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5427292 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5427292?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427292?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427292?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13456831-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5427292 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5427292?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427292?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427292?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13456831-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

13E Von Sturmer Street, Mangere East, Auckland 2024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5427292 — Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord claimed that the tenant did not notify it of a problem with the kitchen sink not draining properly in breach of the tenant’s responsibility under section 40(1)(d) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Because of this failure, the landlord could not rely on the builder’s guarantee which had expired.
The landlord was claiming the total costs of repairs to the sink drain since the end of the tenancy totalling $1,808.38. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the landlord’s claim, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that its claim is more likely than not.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
The Tribunal must also have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) RTA. The landlord’s evidence
The landlord’s evidence was as follows: a. The tenancy started on 21 August 2024 and ended on 20 August 2025. b. The tenant complained of an issue regarding the kitchen sink not draining properly on 26 September 2024. c. A plumber was sent to fix the issue on 2 October 2024. d. The issue recurred but the tenant did not notify the landlord until the inspection in May 2025. e. The issue was not caused by any action of the tenant. The landlord believed that an obstruction in the wastewater pipe was caused during the construction and this caused the issue. f. The builder’s twelve-month guarantee on the premises expired six months into the tenancy in February 2025. g. The tenant’s breach of his responsibility under section 40(1)(d) RTA meant that the landlord was out of time to make a claim under the guarantee. h. It has incurred the following costs: i. Invoice 29 August 2025 for attendances on 14 and 20 August 2025 for attempting to remove the blockage, finding the fault and clearing it: $1,164.38. ii. Invoice 22 October 2025 for “Unblocking service”: $322.00. iii. Invoice 2 December 2025 for “Unblocking service”: $322.00.
The tenant responded as follows: a. The landlord was aware that the problem was not permanently fixed by the plumber in October 2024 and that the issue would require further attention. b. He complained to the landlord that the issue continued but could not provide evidence of reporting the issue to the landlord. c. He believed the issue was caused by the builder dropping something into the pipe during construction which caused it to train ineffectively. d. He believes that the prior hearing considered this issue and that the Tribunal dismissed two rehearing applications from the landlord in relation it. Discussion and decision
The Tribunal is not persuaded on the evidence before it on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is liable for the costs claimed by the landlord for the following reasons: a. The Tribunal has no evidence of what caused the drain not to operate properly. The landlord believed it was caused by a blockage caused during construction but no evidence in support of this conjecture was produced. The invoice for repair dated 29 August 2025 indicates that a blockage was removed but the subsequent invoices of 22 October and 2 December 2025 indicate that the issue remains unresolved. In the absence of satisfactory evidence of what the fault was, it is not possible to determine whether it was an issue covered by the guarantee. It may well have been a design fault or have been caused by whoever was occupying the property prior to this tenancy. b. The landlord has provided no evidence of the guarantee, its terms or that it has expired. Without this document the Tribunal cannot determine that the guarantee covered the fault, whatever it may have been, or that it has in fact expired. c. Just because the guarantee has expired does not mean the landlord has no other remedies against the builder, its contractors, the designer or some other third party which caused the issue. It is not an automatic conclusion that the expiry of a guarantee ends all liability for a fault or defect. Nor is it an automatic conclusion that the tenant must then assume the at-fault party’s liability. d. There is no evidence that the landlord has pursued any other remedy. If it had done so, there may be no need to recover any amount from the tenant. The landlord has produced no evidence of any efforts it should have made to mitigate its loss. Instead, it has incorrectly jumped to the conclusion that the tenant is primarily responsible. e. The tenant’s responsibility under section 40(1)(d) RTA is to notify a landlord so that the matter needing repair does not continue and cause further physical damage to the premises, such as a leak. In this case, the tenant’s failure to notify the landlord did not cause the premises to suffer any further physical damage or deterioration. It is reasonable to conclude that the issue was present from when the building was completed, six months before the tenancy started. Six months of the guarantee had already elapsed prior to this tenancy. The landlord gave no evidence of what notice it or the owner had received about the issue during this period. Indeed, as noted above, the Tribunal has no evidence of what happened or who lived in the property for the six months prior to the start of this tenancy. It is not therefore proven that the expiry of the guarantee period and the loss of the rights under it which the landlord is claiming were entirely attributable to the tenant not informing the landlord that the issue persisted. f. The landlord’s invoices from October and December 2025 are clear evidence that the work carried out in August 2025 did not fix the issue. This raises reasonable doubt whether the issue was that which the parties understood it to be. There is no suggestion or evidence to suggest that the tenant was responsible for the issue, for instance by pouring fat down the drain. The landlord’s claim was based solely on the tenant’s failure to notify the landlord that the issue continued after the repair in October 2025. The tenant is not liable for the failure by the landlord’s contractors to fix the issue.

Is it fair or lawful for the landlord to bring this application?

The landlord’s application 5427292 was for $100.00 rent arrears. The tenant’s application 5316339 was for, among other things, compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain by not fixing the sink issue. The tenant maintained that as the Tribunal has considered this issue before, the landlord’s application was an attempt to relitigate a matter already decided by the Tribunal; in other words, that it was res judicata (which means the matter has already been considered and decided).
At the first hearing the landlord had not brought a claim for compensation in relation to the tenant’s failure to notify it of the need to repair. This is not a matter that the Tribunal has determined before. It is not therefore res judicata.
It is also necessary to consider whether the landlord ought to have brought this claim in its previous application. There is a long-standing principal in law, known as the principal of Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100, which in effect means a party cannot bring another claim, when it could have been brought earlier. This was a decision from 1843 but remains relevant in law today. In that case Wigram VC said: “Where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and adjudication by, a court of competent jurisdiction, the Court required the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matters which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of the case. The plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to the points upon which the Court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, in which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time.”
A losing party cannot simply file another application with the same body to address any deficiencies in their earlier claim. That would offend the principal of finality of litigation. If filing further applications was permitted, then conceivably there may be no end to claims being filed for the same dispute.
In this case, the landlord was not aware of the claim it has made in this application until the hearing of the tenant’s previous claims.
The tenant is understandably frustrated by the landlord filing two unsuccessful applications for rehearing based on the same grounds as this application. However, those rehearing applications were unsuccessful because they were based on the landlord’s belief that the Tribunal’s first decision was wrong. That is grounds for an appeal, not a rehearing. The Tribunal rightly declined to accept what was, in substance, its present claim as a ground for a rehearing.
The Tribunal has not therefore considered the landlord’s present claim before, nor can it be said that this was a claim which the landlord could have introduced at the prior hearing. The Tribunal concludes that it was valid for the landlord to bring its present application and that it was not barred from doing so by either the doctrine of res judicata or the rule in Henderson v Henderson. However, this rule may now prohibit the landlord from bringing any further claims in relation to this tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427292 — Rent arrears at 13E Von Sturmer Street, Mangere East, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427292 — Rent arrears at 13E Von Sturmer Street, Mangere East, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is it fair or lawful for the landlord to bring this application?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Is it fair or lawful for the landlord to bring this application?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions