Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5494910 — Tenancy dispute at 207C Wordsworth Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

Decided 12 Aug 2026 · Published 12 Aug 2026 · Application 5494910

Compensation
Filing Fee
Leaks

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

Auckland

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

M Edison

Dispute themes

Award balance

Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.

Gross award: $3,126.57
Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant: $3,126.57

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5494910 — net $3,126.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$3,098.57	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,126.57
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,126.57

Claims and awards for application 5494910 — net $3,126.57 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Order

The Tribunal declares that [The tenant/s] tenant/s] may terminate the tenancy on 7 days’ notice in writing to the landlord.
Synergy Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $3,126.57 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 11 August 2026.
The tenant applied to the Tribunal on 22 April 2026 seeking work orders for the landlord to repair plumbing issues affecting the three toilets at the premises.
The tenancy agreement is for a fixed term from 29 September 2025 to 29 September 2026. The weekly rent is $750.00.
The tenancy agreement defined the landlord as Synergy Property Management Ltd on behalf of the owner. The identity of the owner was not disclosed. Synergy Property Management Ltd signed the tenancy agreement without qualifying its signature. I consider that it is open to the Tribunal to make orders against the landlord on the basis that they were a contracting party. Background
The tenant issued a notice to remedy dated 15 March 2026, requesting the landlord fix the plumbing and check the drainage system.
The landlord had arranged for plumbers to attend. There is an invoice from Alpha Drain dated 25 February 2026 which states that an air gun was used “to flush [The tenant/s]] pipe and remove the blockage”.
A report from CP Renovation on 12 March 2026 stated that the plumber who visited on 11 March 2026 initially thought there was “a toilet problem”. After further flushing, the plumber thought “...it is not the toilet problem, it was clogged by too many paper[s] in the pipe...”.
There is an invoice from CP Renovation dated 29 March 2026 which refers to the toilet being “unclogged”, and a new toilet being installed. The tenant noted in a text message that the upstairs toilet “works on and off”. It was “definitely a better flush compared to the last one but that still hasn’t fixed the constant blocking”. She also mentioned that the sinks would block.
At the hearing, the tenant said the landlord told her she had arranged a “drain blast” with Blackrock, but when she called them, they confirmed this work was not done.
The landlord said the property is in a building with other units and there have been no reported plumbing issues. It was submitted that the problem was caused by the tenant’s use of the facilities rather than a structural problem with the piping.
The tenant lives at the premises with her one-year-old. The tenant was clear that she had done nothing to cause the toilets to block. The tenant’s photographs and video support her view that the toilets when they block are “disgusting”. Indeed, when a new property manager went to the premises on 1 April 2026, he told the tenant that the premises were considered uninhabitable.
The landlord offered to re-house the tenant however, she did not want to live in a property with the same property manager. It also seems that the landlord’s proposal to re-home the tenant came with the caveat that she would find a replacement tenant. That means the tenant was being asked to find someone to take over a tenancy of premises with (as she perceived it) a serious drainage problem.
I am not satisfied that the tenant failed to take all reasonable steps to mitigate her loss by not accepting alternative accommodation. However, that does not mean, in my view, that the landlord’s proposals are irrelevant to the assessment of compensation.
I consider that the landlord had an obligation to provide premises that had working toilets. The condition of the toilets was insanitary. I consider that the toilets were blocked too frequently and over too long a period for this simply to be a case of unreasonable use by the tenant. While there were blockages, that could be due to other factors. I consider that the landlord probably ought to have done more to check the condition and adequacy of the wastewater system at the premises. No CCTV appears to have been performed. Although the landlord thought this would involve excavation work requiring the tenant to vacate, there is no expert evidence to support this.
I find that the landlord is in breach of section 45(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) because the toilets were not functioning properly, creating a health and safety issue. Compensation
The tenant sought compensation rather than work orders at the hearing.
Tribunal must do its best to assess reasonable compensation arising from a breach, even if there is an element of speculation (Phipps v Consolo (District Court Wellington, CIV-2009-085-232, 14 December 2009)). The assessment of compensation is a question of fact. The contractual measure of damages is to place the relevant party in the position they would have been in if the contract had been performed, so far as money can do so.
I award compensation of $90.00 per week (12% of the weekly rent) from 31 October 2025 (a month after the start of the tenancy) until 1 April 2026 (21 weeks and 6 days) an award of $1,967.14.
I also award compensation of $60.00 per week (8% of the weekly rent) from 2 April 2026 to the date of hearing (18 weeks and 6 days) an award of $1,131.43. This reduction reflects the landlord’s offer to rehouse the tenant, drive her to open homes, and the tenant’s ability to terminate the tenancy pursuant to section 56. The total award is $3,098.57. Declaration
I understood that the landlord issued a 60-day termination notice on 1 August 2026 because the owner wishes to move back in (this is more than the required 42 days’ notice). The notice, which was not provided to the Tribunal, expires in early October.
The tenant said she could work to this timeframe; however, I declare that the tenant may terminate the tenancy on 7 days’ notice. This enables the tenant to move out earlier if she so chooses. Procedural Note
The landlord requested an adjournment to obtain further evidence. He explained that their software had changed, and it had not been possible to retrieve any data. He had taken over from the previous property manager.
I declined the adjournment on the basis that the landlord had had several months to obtain relevant evidence (a copy of the application was emailed to the landlord on 22 April 2026). Filing Fee and Suppression
The tenant is awarded the filing fee. The tenant did not seek suppression.
The landlord sought suppression. This is declined because the landlord has not successfully defended the application.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Compensation Filing Fee Leaks Auckland

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s45(1), s56

Key findings

Dispute theme: leaks
Dispute theme: compensation
Dispute theme: filing fee

Property management

SYNERGY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED (respondent)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5494910 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal declares that [The tenant/s] tenant/s] may terminate the tenancy on 7 days’

How much money was awarded in case 5494910?

Compensation: $3,098.57 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5494910?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5494910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14033675-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

For landlords & property managers

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.

Order a Tenantcheck →

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5494910 — net $3,126.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Compensation

$3,098.57

Compensation

Filing fee reimbursement

$28.00

Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

$3,126.57

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

$3,126.57

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 11 August 2026.

The tenant applied to the Tribunal on 22 April 2026 seeking work orders for the landlord to repair plumbing issues affecting the three toilets at the premises.

The tenancy agreement is for a fixed term from 29 September 2025 to 29 September 2026. The weekly rent is $750.00.

The tenancy agreement defined the landlord as Synergy Property Management Ltd on behalf of the owner. The identity of the owner was not disclosed. Synergy Property Management Ltd signed the tenancy agreement without qualifying its signature. I consider that it is open to the Tribunal to make orders against the landlord on the basis that they were a contracting party. Background

The tenant issued a notice to remedy dated 15 March 2026, requesting the landlord fix the plumbing and check the drainage system.

The landlord had arranged for plumbers to attend. There is an invoice from Alpha Drain dated 25 February 2026 which states that an air gun was used “to flush [The tenant/s]] pipe and remove the blockage”.

A report from CP Renovation on 12 March 2026 stated that the plumber who visited on 11 March 2026 initially thought there was “a toilet problem”. After further flushing, the plumber thought “...it is not the toilet problem, it was clogged by too many paper[s] in the pipe...”.

There is an invoice from CP Renovation dated 29 March 2026 which refers to the toilet being “unclogged”, and a new toilet being installed. The tenant noted in a text message that the upstairs toilet “works on and off”. It was “definitely a better flush compared to the last one but that still hasn’t fixed the constant blocking”. She also mentioned that the sinks would block.

At the hearing, the tenant said the landlord told her she had arranged a “drain blast” with Blackrock, but when she called them, they confirmed this work was not done.

The landlord said the property is in a building with other units and there have been no reported plumbing issues. It was submitted that the problem was caused by the tenant’s use of the facilities rather than a structural problem with the piping.

The tenant lives at the premises with her one-year-old. The tenant was clear that she had done nothing to cause the toilets to block. The tenant’s photographs and video support her view that the toilets when they block are “disgusting”. Indeed, when a new property manager went to the premises on 1 April 2026, he told the tenant that the premises were considered uninhabitable.

The landlord offered to re-house the tenant however, she did not want to live in a property with the same property manager. It also seems that the landlord’s proposal to re-home the tenant came with the caveat that she would find a replacement tenant. That means the tenant was being asked to find someone to take over a tenancy of premises with (as she perceived it) a serious drainage problem.

I am not satisfied that the tenant failed to take all reasonable steps to mitigate her loss by not accepting alternative accommodation. However, that does not mean, in my view, that the landlord’s proposals are irrelevant to the assessment of compensation.

I consider that the landlord had an obligation to provide premises that had working toilets. The condition of the toilets was insanitary. I consider that the toilets were blocked too frequently and over too long a period for this simply to be a case of unreasonable use by the tenant. While there were blockages, that could be due to other factors. I consider that the landlord probably ought to have done more to check the condition and adequacy of the wastewater system at the premises. No CCTV appears to have been performed. Although the landlord thought this would involve excavation work requiring the tenant to vacate, there is no expert evidence to support this.

I find that the landlord is in breach of section 45(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) because the toilets were not functioning properly, creating a health and safety issue. Compensation

The tenant sought compensation rather than work orders at the hearing.

Tribunal must do its best to assess reasonable compensation arising from a breach, even if there is an element of speculation (Phipps v Consolo (District Court Wellington, CIV-2009-085-232, 14 December 2009)). The assessment of compensation is a question of fact. The contractual measure of damages is to place the relevant party in the position they would have been in if the contract had been performed, so far as money can do so.

I award compensation of $90.00 per week (12% of the weekly rent) from 31 October 2025 (a month after the start of the tenancy) until 1 April 2026 (21 weeks and 6 days) an award of $1,967.14.

I also award compensation of $60.00 per week (8% of the weekly rent) from 2 April 2026 to the date of hearing (18 weeks and 6 days) an award of $1,131.43. This reduction reflects the landlord’s offer to rehouse the tenant, drive her to open homes, and the tenant’s ability to terminate the tenancy pursuant to section 56. The total award is $3,098.57. Declaration

I understood that the landlord issued a 60-day termination notice on 1 August 2026 because the owner wishes to move back in (this is more than the required 42 days’ notice). The notice, which was not provided to the Tribunal, expires in early October.

The tenant said she could work to this timeframe; however, I declare that the tenant may terminate the tenancy on 7 days’ notice. This enables the tenant to move out earlier if she so chooses. Procedural Note

The landlord requested an adjournment to obtain further evidence. He explained that their software had changed, and it had not been possible to retrieve any data. He had taken over from the previous property manager.

I declined the adjournment on the basis that the landlord had had several months to obtain relevant evidence (a copy of the application was emailed to the landlord on 22 April 2026). Filing Fee and Suppression

The tenant is awarded the filing fee. The tenant did not seek suppression.

The landlord sought suppression. This is declined because the landlord has not successfully defended the application.