What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5496820 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ request for name suppression is refused.

How much money was awarded in case 5496820?

Compensation: Collection Costs: $102.08 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Power Costs: $167.66 awarded to tenant; Rent Rebate – Two Days: $171.43 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496820?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496820?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13980032-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5496820 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ request for name suppression is refused.

How much money was awarded in case 5496820?

Compensation: Collection Costs: $102.08 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Power Costs: $167.66 awarded to tenant; Rent Rebate – Two Days: $171.43 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496820?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496820?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13980032-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

141 Hazlett Street, Clyde 9330 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5496820 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5496820 — net $441.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent rebate – two days	$171.43	Rent rebate – two days
Compensation: Power costs	$167.66	Power costs
Compensation: Collection Costs	$102.08	Collection Costs
Net award	$441.17
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$441.17

Order

The tenants’ request for name suppression is refused.
[The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $441.17 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The tenants’ claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing which was conducted by video conference.
The tenants claim compensation and exemplary damages arising from a flooding event at the premises and the subsequent termination of the tenancy. Background
In March 2025 the tenants were newly returned from Australia and in need of accommodation for them and their children.
The landlords granted them a tenancy of their house in Clyde for a six-month fixed term from 25 March at a rent of $600 per week.
On 29 April 2025 the bathroom and adjoining areas were flooded by water from a failed pipe fitting under the vanity.
The landlords responded promptly and their son Dallas Tither, who lives locally, attended the premises with a plumber, followed shortly after by contractors from Chem Dry.
The tenants had acted quickly to turn off the water to the premises and the plumber quickly repaired the pipe fitting.
At first, the tenants were informed that it would take five days to dry out the premises. But then Dallas informed them that it would take at least five weeks to complete the necessary remediation work.
The landlords informed the tenants that they could not live in the premises until the work was completed. The tenants accepted that and moved out.
The tenants went to Timaru to stay with Mr Strong’s mother but due to the small size of that accommodation it was not a satisfactory arrangement for anyone concerned.
The tenants decided that waiting for five weeks for the house to be ready for occupation was too long and on 5 May they notified the landlords that they were ending the tenancy on 8 May. The landlords accepted that. On 9 May, at the request of the landlords, they returned to the premises to clean them. The tenants, rightly, declined to attend to anything relating to the flooding.
On 27 May the tenants moved into rented premises in Dunedin. The Basis of the Tenants’ Claims
The tenants have suggested that the landlords may have been aware that the plumbing in the premises were susceptible to failure. They said that Dallas made a comment about the water pressure for Clyde township being unusually high. But there is no real evidence either of high water pressure or that the landlords had any knowledge or should have had any knowledge, that there was a fault with the plumbing in the premises. I therefore accept that the failure of the plumbing fitting and the resultant flooding was a sudden and unexpected event for which the landlords bear no responsibility.
At the core of the tenants’ claims is the assertion that the landlords misrepresented the time it would take to remediate the flood damage and thereby caused them to terminate the tenancy. In their submissions they describe it as “Coercive Constructive Eviction via Material Misrepresentation”. That is not an expression I have encountered previously, and it is not one that the law recognises. Misrepresentation is a recognised basis for making a claim. It involves a person making as untrue statement of fact to another person which induces that person to enter a contract. Statements that the other person relies on to their detriment can also be a basis for making a claim. That is not misrepresentation, but it can entitle the recipient of the statement to a remedy, such as compensation, based on the principle that the maker of the statement should be responsible for the consequences of the statement.
Put simply, the tenants case appears to be that the landlords intended carrying out work that went beyond what was needed to remediate the water damage and that extended the time that the tenants would need to out of the house. The landlords were entitled to repair the damage; indeed, they were obliged to do so, but they were not entitled to keep the tenants out of the house for longer than necessary. The tenants argue that by choosing to carry out unnecessary work, the landlords compelled them to end the tenancy.
The tenants did not question the time estimate at the time, and arguably they could and should have done so if they felt that it was unreasonable. But aside from that, the tenants’ complaint is legally arguable. I would categorise it as a claim that the landlords interfered with their quiet enjoyment of the premises by requiring them to vacate for work that the landlords were not entitled to do during the tenancy. In this context, s48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) entitles a landlord to undertake only necessary work during the tenancy. Evidence and Conclusion on the Time Estimate
The tenants said that Dallas told them that the landlords intended laying new carpet throughout the house, updating the bathroom and kitchen and improving the plumbing system.
The landlords said that after the tenants ended the tenancy, it became clear that the work was going to take considerably longer to complete than anyone expected. That was due to a variety of factors, including the need for the landlords’ insurers to assess the damage, obtain quotes, select a contractor and for the contractor to obtain materials and programme and complete the work. As it turned out, the work took several months to complete the work. The insurers did not accept the quotation for the work until the end of July. The landlords carried out some additional work, but the start time alone shows that the five- week estimate was optimistic in the extreme.
Dallas gave evidence and he explained that his five-week estimate was a best- case scenario. He said that just doing the work that that was needed to remediate the flood damage was going to take five weeks at best. It included removing the shower, the vanity and the water damaged carpets. They all had to be replaced with new.
I am satisfied from the evidence that the landlords did not overestimate of the time needed to complete necessary work. It was, even at the time, an underestimate. It has turned out to be a gross underestimate. The landlords carried out some additional work, but it did not materially extend the time needed to complete the remediation of the flooding damage.
The evidence and my finding fundamentally undermines the majority of the tenants’ claims because they rely on their assertion that the estimate was an overstatement of the time it would take to complete the work. The tenants were not willing to wait five weeks for the work to be completed and so their decision to end the tenancy when they did was the right one for them to make.
I note that under s59A of the Act tenants can end the tenancy on two days notice where the premises are so seriously damaged that they are uninhabitable. That was the situation here. Possibly, if the repairs could have been completed in five weeks, one could argue that the premises were not uninhabitable. That is because there is an element of time involved when considering the issue of uninhabitability. Damage requiring a short period of time out of the premises does not constitute uninhabitability. But the reality was that the repairs were going to take much longer than five weeks.
It follows that the landlords cannot be held responsible for giving a time estimate that turned out to be wrong. I am satisfied that it was given is good faith and if they had given a correct time estimate, plainly the tenants would have acted in the same way as they did and ended the tenancy.
To be clear, I find that the landlords were not at fault for the flooding, not at fault in relation to the remediation work including the time estimate given for its completion and therefore not at fault for requiring the tenants to vacate or for any its consequences apart from the claims below. Other Claims Rent Rebate
The landlords accepted that the tenants paid rent for two days during which they were unable to occupy the premises, and they agreed to repay the two days rent to the tenants. Power Costs
The landlords also agreed to reimburse the tenants the power costs during the time that they were not occupying the premises. Contractors used power at the premises during the clean-up and remediation. The landlords were waiting for their insurer to settle their claim before paying the tenants. Collection Costs
The tenants have incurred collection costs because they did not pay the power costs. The landlords dispute this claim.
This is an issue that can be argued both ways. The tenants would argue that the landlords should have paid the power costs promptly and avoided the collection costs. The landlords would say that the tenants should have mitigated their loss by paying the power bill in time. Both arguments have validity.
I have decided the issue in the tenants’ favour because the power charges were ultimately the landlords’ responsibility, and they should not have waited for their insurer to pay them before paying the tenants. Their insurance arrangements in these circumstances do not concern the tenants. I also accept that the tenants were disrupted and incurred unexpected costs due to their displacement. Filing Fee
The tenants have had limited success, so I have not awarded the filing fee. Name Suppression
I refuse the tenants’ request for name suppression. They have had limited success and there is no good reason to depart from the principle of open justice.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5496820 — net $441.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent rebate – two days	$171.43	Rent rebate – two days
Compensation: Power costs	$167.66	Power costs
Compensation: Collection Costs	$102.08	Collection Costs
Net award	$441.17
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$441.17

Order

The tenants’ request for name suppression is refused.
[The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $441.17 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The tenants’ claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing which was conducted by video conference.
The tenants claim compensation and exemplary damages arising from a flooding event at the premises and the subsequent termination of the tenancy. Background
In March 2025 the tenants were newly returned from Australia and in need of accommodation for them and their children.
The landlords granted them a tenancy of their house in Clyde for a six-month fixed term from 25 March at a rent of $600 per week.
On 29 April 2025 the bathroom and adjoining areas were flooded by water from a failed pipe fitting under the vanity.
The landlords responded promptly and their son Dallas Tither, who lives locally, attended the premises with a plumber, followed shortly after by contractors from Chem Dry.
The tenants had acted quickly to turn off the water to the premises and the plumber quickly repaired the pipe fitting.
At first, the tenants were informed that it would take five days to dry out the premises. But then Dallas informed them that it would take at least five weeks to complete the necessary remediation work.
The landlords informed the tenants that they could not live in the premises until the work was completed. The tenants accepted that and moved out.
The tenants went to Timaru to stay with Mr Strong’s mother but due to the small size of that accommodation it was not a satisfactory arrangement for anyone concerned.
The tenants decided that waiting for five weeks for the house to be ready for occupation was too long and on 5 May they notified the landlords that they were ending the tenancy on 8 May. The landlords accepted that. On 9 May, at the request of the landlords, they returned to the premises to clean them. The tenants, rightly, declined to attend to anything relating to the flooding.
On 27 May the tenants moved into rented premises in Dunedin. The Basis of the Tenants’ Claims
The tenants have suggested that the landlords may have been aware that the plumbing in the premises were susceptible to failure. They said that Dallas made a comment about the water pressure for Clyde township being unusually high. But there is no real evidence either of high water pressure or that the landlords had any knowledge or should have had any knowledge, that there was a fault with the plumbing in the premises. I therefore accept that the failure of the plumbing fitting and the resultant flooding was a sudden and unexpected event for which the landlords bear no responsibility.
At the core of the tenants’ claims is the assertion that the landlords misrepresented the time it would take to remediate the flood damage and thereby caused them to terminate the tenancy. In their submissions they describe it as “Coercive Constructive Eviction via Material Misrepresentation”. That is not an expression I have encountered previously, and it is not one that the law recognises. Misrepresentation is a recognised basis for making a claim. It involves a person making as untrue statement of fact to another person which induces that person to enter a contract. Statements that the other person relies on to their detriment can also be a basis for making a claim. That is not misrepresentation, but it can entitle the recipient of the statement to a remedy, such as compensation, based on the principle that the maker of the statement should be responsible for the consequences of the statement.
Put simply, the tenants case appears to be that the landlords intended carrying out work that went beyond what was needed to remediate the water damage and that extended the time that the tenants would need to out of the house. The landlords were entitled to repair the damage; indeed, they were obliged to do so, but they were not entitled to keep the tenants out of the house for longer than necessary. The tenants argue that by choosing to carry out unnecessary work, the landlords compelled them to end the tenancy.
The tenants did not question the time estimate at the time, and arguably they could and should have done so if they felt that it was unreasonable. But aside from that, the tenants’ complaint is legally arguable. I would categorise it as a claim that the landlords interfered with their quiet enjoyment of the premises by requiring them to vacate for work that the landlords were not entitled to do during the tenancy. In this context, s48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) entitles a landlord to undertake only necessary work during the tenancy. Evidence and Conclusion on the Time Estimate
The tenants said that Dallas told them that the landlords intended laying new carpet throughout the house, updating the bathroom and kitchen and improving the plumbing system.
The landlords said that after the tenants ended the tenancy, it became clear that the work was going to take considerably longer to complete than anyone expected. That was due to a variety of factors, including the need for the landlords’ insurers to assess the damage, obtain quotes, select a contractor and for the contractor to obtain materials and programme and complete the work. As it turned out, the work took several months to complete the work. The insurers did not accept the quotation for the work until the end of July. The landlords carried out some additional work, but the start time alone shows that the five- week estimate was optimistic in the extreme.
Dallas gave evidence and he explained that his five-week estimate was a best- case scenario. He said that just doing the work that that was needed to remediate the flood damage was going to take five weeks at best. It included removing the shower, the vanity and the water damaged carpets. They all had to be replaced with new.
I am satisfied from the evidence that the landlords did not overestimate of the time needed to complete necessary work. It was, even at the time, an underestimate. It has turned out to be a gross underestimate. The landlords carried out some additional work, but it did not materially extend the time needed to complete the remediation of the flooding damage.
The evidence and my finding fundamentally undermines the majority of the tenants’ claims because they rely on their assertion that the estimate was an overstatement of the time it would take to complete the work. The tenants were not willing to wait five weeks for the work to be completed and so their decision to end the tenancy when they did was the right one for them to make.
I note that under s59A of the Act tenants can end the tenancy on two days notice where the premises are so seriously damaged that they are uninhabitable. That was the situation here. Possibly, if the repairs could have been completed in five weeks, one could argue that the premises were not uninhabitable. That is because there is an element of time involved when considering the issue of uninhabitability. Damage requiring a short period of time out of the premises does not constitute uninhabitability. But the reality was that the repairs were going to take much longer than five weeks.
It follows that the landlords cannot be held responsible for giving a time estimate that turned out to be wrong. I am satisfied that it was given is good faith and if they had given a correct time estimate, plainly the tenants would have acted in the same way as they did and ended the tenancy.
To be clear, I find that the landlords were not at fault for the flooding, not at fault in relation to the remediation work including the time estimate given for its completion and therefore not at fault for requiring the tenants to vacate or for any its consequences apart from the claims below. Other Claims Rent Rebate
The landlords accepted that the tenants paid rent for two days during which they were unable to occupy the premises, and they agreed to repay the two days rent to the tenants. Power Costs
The landlords also agreed to reimburse the tenants the power costs during the time that they were not occupying the premises. Contractors used power at the premises during the clean-up and remediation. The landlords were waiting for their insurer to settle their claim before paying the tenants. Collection Costs
The tenants have incurred collection costs because they did not pay the power costs. The landlords dispute this claim.
This is an issue that can be argued both ways. The tenants would argue that the landlords should have paid the power costs promptly and avoided the collection costs. The landlords would say that the tenants should have mitigated their loss by paying the power bill in time. Both arguments have validity.
I have decided the issue in the tenants’ favour because the power charges were ultimately the landlords’ responsibility, and they should not have waited for their insurer to pay them before paying the tenants. Their insurance arrangements in these circumstances do not concern the tenants. I also accept that the tenants were disrupted and incurred unexpected costs due to their displacement. Filing Fee
The tenants have had limited success, so I have not awarded the filing fee. Name Suppression
I refuse the tenants’ request for name suppression. They have had limited success and there is no good reason to depart from the principle of open justice.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5496820 — Tenancy dispute at 141 Hazlett Street, Clyde 9330

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5496820 — Tenancy dispute at 141 Hazlett Street, Clyde 9330

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.