What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5487197 about?

The tribunal order states: Bayleys Real Estate Limited Katrin Katafiasz must pay [The tenant/s] $3,128.00

How much money was awarded in case 5487197?

Compensation: Loss of use - heat pum…: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of use - water in…: $1,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5487197?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13907527-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5487197 about?

The tribunal order states: Bayleys Real Estate Limited Katrin Katafiasz must pay [The tenant/s] $3,128.00

How much money was awarded in case 5487197?

Compensation: Loss of use - heat pum…: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of use - water in…: $1,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5487197?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13907527-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

26 Valley Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5487197 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5487197 — net $3,128.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of use - heat pump	$1,500.00	Loss of use - heat pump
Compensation: Loss of use - water ingress	$1,600.00	Loss of use - water ingress
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,128.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,128.00

Order

Bayleys Real Estate Limited Katrin Katafiasz must pay [The tenant/s] $3,128.00 immediately, as below. This can be paid by way of a rent credit:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 2 July 2026.
The tenancy began on 1 February 2025. The tenancy is still current.
On 13 April 2026, the tenant applied to the Tenancy Tribunal for work orders, compensation and exemplary damages.
The tenant had applied to have the faulty heat pump fixed and the roof and wall water leak fixed.
However, the tenant confirmed that both had been fixed by the time of the hearing. The heat pump was replaced entirely on 22 June 2026 and the water leak was fixed on 24 April 2026.
There had been claims in relation to increased water costs due to a toilet leak and being charged for a heat pump technician callout. However, those claims had been resolved before the hearing and were withdrawn at the hearing.
Therefore, the focus of the hearing was whether there should be compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant had provided videos to support the claims and records of multiple efforts made by the tenant to bring the issues to the landlord attention. The tenant believed that the issues were only fixed because they had been escalated by lodging this application with the Tenancy Tribunal. Heat pump issue
In relation to the heat pump, the tenant said that the issue was first reported to the landlord on 10 June 2025, and it took 54 weeks to get it finally fixed. Initially the tenant was seeking for compensation for the winter period of only but then sought compensation for the loss of the cooling function during summer as well.
The tenant said that he had sent 15 emails at least to the landlord. The tenant acknowledged that he had never sent the landlord a 14-day notice about it.
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 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. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord sent out 3 different contractors to have the heat pump looked at. The fault was intermittent so even when a contractor was attending at the premises, it was difficult to identify whether the issue was with the heat pump itself or whether it was a user fault.
It was not until 7 January 2026, when a specific error code appeared with the heat pump that the landlord received confirmation from the contractor that the heat pump required work to be done under warranty.
Due to the difficulty with identifying error, the tenant had gotten up at 3:00 am one time to video record the heat pump failure. The tenant had to put in significant efforts to try to convince the landlord that it was the heat pump’s fault and not his.
From the hearing, it seemed that the heat pump failed mostly when it was too cold. It seemed that there was no evidence of it failing during summer to blow cold air.
I acknowledge the loss of heat pump is a significant loss of enjoyment of the premises. Heating standard is guaranteed under the Healthy Homes Standards.
I disagree with the calculations of both parties as to how much the appropriate compensation should be.
I calculate the loss of heat pump for 13 weeks, being a quarter of the year to account for the coldest days of the year. I find $100.00 per week compensation would be appropriate.
In addition to that, I find $200.00 extra compensation for the tenant’s trouble in having to gather evidence and deal with multiple contractors before the matter could be resolved.
Accordingly, I order the landlord to compensate the tenant $1,500.00 for the loss of use of the heat pump for the time that it was faulty.
In relation to exemplary damages, I do not find that the landlord had failed to attend to the heat pump issue. The landlord sent multiple contractors and had acted on the findings of the contractors. This cannot be faulted. Accordingly, I do not order any exemplary damages for this claim. Water leak
The tenant provided evidence of the house having leaked from September 2025. There was water coming through the top of the French doors and ceiling. The cause seemed to have been a design fault with the valley junction in the roof where the water dispersed to the lower sheets.
Multiple contractors came and assessed the roof and leak issue, and the tenant had been told by one of the contractors that the roof needed to be repaired or replaced from as early as September 2025.
The landlord claimed that the leak was only during very heavy rain when rain was going from a specific angle. The tenant rebutted this by highlighting it was a design issue that had to be rectified.
Although there had been temporary fixes, it was only fixed for good when the roofers came and attended to it. The actual final fix required one day’s work only. Custom flashing had to be in installed in the area to direct water away from the eaves along with new fascia and new gutters.
From evidence online, there was a record of there having been 65 to 70 days of rain in the affected period. The tenant said that the roof and walls were completely soaked in water causing dampness to the premises when it rained. The tenant believed there was mould in the walls and emphasised that it was not simply a matter of mopping water up from the floor.
Again, I do not find that the landlord failed to attend to the leaking issue. This type of works requires careful coordination and multiple quotes. I do not find there is public interest in awarding exemplary damages.
I do not find that there was mould in the walls. However, I accept the water leak, dampness, and inconvenience had caused loss of full enjoyment of the premises for the tenant.
I calculate $20.00 reduction of rent per rainy day as appropriate. For 70 days of rain, that equates to $1,400.00. Further to that, I find $200.00 compensation to acknowledge the inconvenience caused to the tenant to be adequate in the circumstances.
Accordingly, I order the landlord to compensate the tenant $1,600.00 for the water leak issue. Filing fee reimbursement
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5487197 — net $3,128.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of use - heat pump	$1,500.00	Loss of use - heat pump
Compensation: Loss of use - water ingress	$1,600.00	Loss of use - water ingress
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,128.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,128.00

Order

Bayleys Real Estate Limited Katrin Katafiasz must pay [The tenant/s] $3,128.00 immediately, as below. This can be paid by way of a rent credit:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 2 July 2026.
The tenancy began on 1 February 2025. The tenancy is still current.
On 13 April 2026, the tenant applied to the Tenancy Tribunal for work orders, compensation and exemplary damages.
The tenant had applied to have the faulty heat pump fixed and the roof and wall water leak fixed.
However, the tenant confirmed that both had been fixed by the time of the hearing. The heat pump was replaced entirely on 22 June 2026 and the water leak was fixed on 24 April 2026.
There had been claims in relation to increased water costs due to a toilet leak and being charged for a heat pump technician callout. However, those claims had been resolved before the hearing and were withdrawn at the hearing.
Therefore, the focus of the hearing was whether there should be compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant had provided videos to support the claims and records of multiple efforts made by the tenant to bring the issues to the landlord attention. The tenant believed that the issues were only fixed because they had been escalated by lodging this application with the Tenancy Tribunal. Heat pump issue
In relation to the heat pump, the tenant said that the issue was first reported to the landlord on 10 June 2025, and it took 54 weeks to get it finally fixed. Initially the tenant was seeking for compensation for the winter period of only but then sought compensation for the loss of the cooling function during summer as well.
The tenant said that he had sent 15 emails at least to the landlord. The tenant acknowledged that he had never sent the landlord a 14-day notice about it.
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 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. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord sent out 3 different contractors to have the heat pump looked at. The fault was intermittent so even when a contractor was attending at the premises, it was difficult to identify whether the issue was with the heat pump itself or whether it was a user fault.
It was not until 7 January 2026, when a specific error code appeared with the heat pump that the landlord received confirmation from the contractor that the heat pump required work to be done under warranty.
Due to the difficulty with identifying error, the tenant had gotten up at 3:00 am one time to video record the heat pump failure. The tenant had to put in significant efforts to try to convince the landlord that it was the heat pump’s fault and not his.
From the hearing, it seemed that the heat pump failed mostly when it was too cold. It seemed that there was no evidence of it failing during summer to blow cold air.
I acknowledge the loss of heat pump is a significant loss of enjoyment of the premises. Heating standard is guaranteed under the Healthy Homes Standards.
I disagree with the calculations of both parties as to how much the appropriate compensation should be.
I calculate the loss of heat pump for 13 weeks, being a quarter of the year to account for the coldest days of the year. I find $100.00 per week compensation would be appropriate.
In addition to that, I find $200.00 extra compensation for the tenant’s trouble in having to gather evidence and deal with multiple contractors before the matter could be resolved.
Accordingly, I order the landlord to compensate the tenant $1,500.00 for the loss of use of the heat pump for the time that it was faulty.
In relation to exemplary damages, I do not find that the landlord had failed to attend to the heat pump issue. The landlord sent multiple contractors and had acted on the findings of the contractors. This cannot be faulted. Accordingly, I do not order any exemplary damages for this claim. Water leak
The tenant provided evidence of the house having leaked from September 2025. There was water coming through the top of the French doors and ceiling. The cause seemed to have been a design fault with the valley junction in the roof where the water dispersed to the lower sheets.
Multiple contractors came and assessed the roof and leak issue, and the tenant had been told by one of the contractors that the roof needed to be repaired or replaced from as early as September 2025.
The landlord claimed that the leak was only during very heavy rain when rain was going from a specific angle. The tenant rebutted this by highlighting it was a design issue that had to be rectified.
Although there had been temporary fixes, it was only fixed for good when the roofers came and attended to it. The actual final fix required one day’s work only. Custom flashing had to be in installed in the area to direct water away from the eaves along with new fascia and new gutters.
From evidence online, there was a record of there having been 65 to 70 days of rain in the affected period. The tenant said that the roof and walls were completely soaked in water causing dampness to the premises when it rained. The tenant believed there was mould in the walls and emphasised that it was not simply a matter of mopping water up from the floor.
Again, I do not find that the landlord failed to attend to the leaking issue. This type of works requires careful coordination and multiple quotes. I do not find there is public interest in awarding exemplary damages.
I do not find that there was mould in the walls. However, I accept the water leak, dampness, and inconvenience had caused loss of full enjoyment of the premises for the tenant.
I calculate $20.00 reduction of rent per rainy day as appropriate. For 70 days of rain, that equates to $1,400.00. Further to that, I find $200.00 compensation to acknowledge the inconvenience caused to the tenant to be adequate in the circumstances.
Accordingly, I order the landlord to compensate the tenant $1,600.00 for the water leak issue. Filing fee reimbursement
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5487197 — Leaks at 26 Valley Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5487197 — Leaks at 26 Valley Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions