Tenant's claim over insufficient hot water supply dismissed by Tenancy Tribunal
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a tenant's claim that their landlord failed to provide an adequate hot water supply. The Tribunal found that the landlord had provided a suitable and operational hot water cylinder, and that the issue was related to the power supply rather than the hot water cylinder itself.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant must prove a breach of building health and safety standards to the civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities.
📖 What the law says
This section outlines a landlord's responsibilities, including providing premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair. It also requires landlords to comply with all building, health, and safety requirements that apply to the premises.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal dismissed the tenant's claim due to insufficient evidence of a breach of building health and safety standards.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a tenant's claim that their landlord failed to provide an adequate hot water supply, finding no breach of building health and safety standards.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5064128 1
[2025] NZTT 5064128
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The application is dismissed.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the video hearings of this matter on 24 February and 9 April 2025.
2. The tenant’s claim to the Tribunal was based on the landlord’s failure to comply with all the requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises ( see s.45(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Regulation 9 of the Home Improvements Regulations requires a landlord to provide an adequate supply of water to baths and showers and with an adequate means of heating. The tenant had raised the issue with the landlord. The issue had not in the tenant’s view
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5064128 2
been resolved satisfactorily and the tenants sought work orders from the Tribunal.
3. The tenant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
4. The tenancy commenced on 23 August 2024. At the heart of the problem was the size and operation of the hot water cylinder. This is a 3 bedroom detached modern house. It has two showers and a bath. The tenant explained how the hot water supply was insufficient and would frequently run out. The tenant initially thought that the hot water cylinder was too small.
5. The landlord employed a plumber and an electrician to consider the problems. The initial reports from the contractors was that there was no fault with the hot water cylinder.
6. When this matter was first heard on 24 February 2025 the Tribunal ordered the landlord to obtain further reports from qualified electricians and plumbers as to the cause for the limited hot water supply.
7. The plumbers report provided made it clear that there was no issue with the hot water cylinder and that the system was working as it should, heating up and maintaining heat within the cylinder.
8. The electrician said;
“I've been to this property three different times on three different days to check the hot water cylinder. The hot water cylinder was turned off by the ripple relay at all three occasions. On Thursday 6 March 2025 I moved the hot water cylinder circuit from the ripple circuit to normal power and communicated this to the customer. I explained to her that the hot water cylinder will permanently have power on it now with the thermostat controlling the temperature. Claimed that the ripple will have no effect on the temperature anymore and if the hot water cylinder does not run out of water now it means that 180L is big enough. I went back Monday 10 March 2025 in she advised me that it is better but that she needs until Wednesday 12 March 2025 to be sure”.
9. The tenant’s evidence today was that the change to the ripple circuit has improved her hot water supply.
9. The obligation on the landlord is to comply with all requirements in respect of building health and safety. The landlord has provided the tenant with a suitable and operational hot water cylinder. The landlord is not involved in any arrangements for the type of power supply to the premises. The type of supply is a matter between the tenant and the power supply company.
10. The ripple circuit is currently disconnected, but will need to be reconnected once the tenant makes a decision on the type of power supply which is most
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5064128 3
appropriate for her. Once again, that is a matter between the tenant and her power supply company.
11. For the reasons set out above, I do not consider that the landlord has been in breach of its responsibilities under the RTA, nor do I consider that a work order should be issued as there is no defect with the hot water cylinder. For those reasons the tenants application is dismissed.
[NAME]
09 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5064128 4
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5064128 5
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The landlord provided a suitable and operational hot water cylinder.
- The electrician confirmed that the hot water cylinder was functioning correctly after adjusting the power supply.
- There was no fault found with the hot water cylinder itself.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant claimed the hot water supply was insufficient and would frequently run out, but this was not supported by evidence.
- The tenant's belief that the hot water cylinder was too small was not substantiated by the expert reports.
- The issue with the hot water supply was attributed to the ripple circuit, which is not the landlord's responsibility.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the tenant's claim that the landlord failed to provide an adequate hot water supply.
What was the dispute about?
The tenant claimed that the hot water supply was insufficient and that the landlord had not resolved the issue satisfactorily.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the landlord had provided a suitable and operational hot water cylinder, and that the issue was related to the power supply rather than the hot water cylinder itself.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1)(c) and the Home Improvements Regulations, regulation 9 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was whether the tenant could prove that the landlord breached the building health and safety standards to the civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have sufficient evidence to prove a breach of building health and safety standards to the civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents that mattered included the reports from the plumber and electrician, and the tenant's evidence regarding the improvement in the hot water supply after changing the power supply arrangement.