Tenant wins surface water drainage claim at Tenancy Tribunal
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal awarded $500 to a tenant for surface water drainage issues, dismissing other claims. The claimant successfully proved that the premises did not have an efficient system for removing surface water during the tenancy.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to compensation for breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards if they can prove the breach on the balance of probabilities.
📖 What the law says
This section outlines the responsibilities of a landlord, including providing the property in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair, and complying with all building, health, and safety requirements. It also states that a landlord must compensate a tenant for reasonable repair expenses if the disrepair was not caused by the tenant.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's surface water drainage claim was successful, while other claims were dismissed.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal awarded $500 to a tenant for surface water drainage issues, dismissing other claims. The claimant successfully proved that the premises did not have an efficient system for removing surface water during the tenancy.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5121429 1
[2025] NZTT 5121429, 5070815
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT CHRISTCHURCH | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI ŌTAUTAHI
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [COMPANY] As Agent For [NAME] must pay [NAME] $500.00 immediately, being compensation for Surface Water - Storm Water Drainage.
2. The tenant’s other claims are dismissed.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended a hearing today.
2. This was a partial rehearing of the tenant application (5121429). When a rehearing was granted, the tenant was reminded that it is for her to articulate her claims.
3. I also note that the Tribunal is an adjudicative body. It considers the matters set out in an application, hears the evidence on those matters and makes a decision.
4. A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5121429 2
(or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
5. The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated:
“…[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (emphasis added)
6. The rehearing was granted in respect of alleged drainage issues, garage door, toilet flushing and ranch slider door handle. At the start of the hearing the tenant indicated that it also had claims regarding the Healthy Homes Heating standard.
7. While the order granting a rehearing does not refer to a heating claim, I heard the tenants claim today. It is apparent that the issue was included in the tenant’s application and has not been determined by the Tribunal.
Healthy Homes Claims
8. The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating and drainage standards.
9. Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. This property was required to comply within 90 days of 11 November 2021 which was the commencement date of the tenancy.
10. The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The drainage system must ensure the rental home, including the land that it sits on, is not subject to periodic flooding during or after normal rain. The functionality of guttering, downpipes and drainage can be difficult to visually assess during dry weather or light rain. However, it is possible to check that stormwater is connected to an appropriate outfall. An appropriate outfall will generally be the storm water system provided by a local council but may also include a properly working soakage system, natural watercourse, adequate water storage system or other constructed water way.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5121429 3
11. The evidence establishes that the tenant had issues with surface water drainage after rain throughout the tenancy. The landlord provided a Healthy Homes inspection report which stated the drainage system was compliant. The report does not record the type of drainage system. Nor does it record the steps taken for the assessor to confirm compliance. The report notes the drainage inspection is a visual inspection of above ground elements only.
12. This is a rural property. The wastewater was not connected to a Council waste; there was a septic tank. The landlord should not assume that the stormwater was connected to a Council outlet. The evidence shows that the tenant raised concerns with the surface water throughout the tenancy and at least someone within the landlord’s office was aware of the issue, but it was not properly investigated.
13. Having regard to the photographs that show the frequency of standing water after rain and the lack of any confirmation of connection to a proper outfall system, I find that theses premises did not have an efficient system for the removal of surface water during the tenancy.
14. The tenant did not establish that the effects of the surface water were as bad as she claimed, but I accept that it did cause inconvenience during the tenancy. I award $500 for loss of amenity for periodic surface water at the premises.
15. The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
16. The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
17. These premises had an approved log burner and a heat pump. The tenant says that the heat pump was old and did not produce the correct heat out-put. The landlord says that the fire was the primary source of heating, and its output was three times the amount required by the heating standard.
18. Both parties provided me with completed heating calculator tools. The results were vastly different. The landlord assessed that the required heating was 5.2kW. That assessment was completed by an experienced Healthy Homes assessor. The tenant assessed that the required heating was 13.1kW. That assessment was completed by someone who replied to a request on a community Facebook page. The fire had an out put capacity of 15-21kW. The tenant says that the capacity of the heat pump was 8.5kW.
https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5121429 4
19. Taking account of all of the evidence, the tenant has not established that it is more likely than not that the premises did not meet the Healthy Homes heating standard. This aspect of the claim is dismissed.
Repairs & Maintenance
20. The tenant also claims that the landlord has breached their repair and maintenance obligations.
21. Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant claimed that a toilet did not flush effectively during the tenancy and a ranch slider door was missing or broken. She provided some evidence in relation to those issues but said that she was “not really too concerned” about the issues. She did not put forward a compensation claim in respect of those matters. For the avoidance of doubt any claims regarding the toilet flushing and the door handle are dismissed.
22. The tenant was concerned about the garage door and claims that she could not access the garage throughout the tenancy. The evidence shows that she notified the landlord that repairs were required three time during the tenancy and each time the door was repaired. The email evidence shows that the door could be opened manually, but that the auto-roller needed attention. The tenant has not established that the door was faulty for the duration of the tenancy or that the landlord failed to have it repaired when issues arose. This aspect of the claim is dismissed.
[NAME]
13 May 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5121429 5
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5121429 6
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 tenant proved that surface water drainage issues caused inconvenience throughout the tenancy.
- The landlord's Healthy Homes inspection report did not confirm compliance because it lacked details on the drainage system and assessment steps.
- The property's drainage system was inefficient for removing surface water, as shown by photographs of standing water and lack of proper outfall confirmation.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant failed to prove that the premises did not meet the Healthy Homes heating standard.
- The tenant did not claim compensation for the toilet flushing or ranch slider door issues, indicating they were not a primary concern.
- The tenant did not prove the garage door was faulty for the entire tenancy or that the landlord failed to repair it when issues arose.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal awarded $500 to a tenant for surface water drainage issues, dismissing other claims.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about surface water drainage issues and compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the tenant for surface water drainage issues because the tenant proved that the drainage system was inefficient.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the tenant's proof that the drainage system was inefficient and caused inconvenience.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, awarding $500 for surface water drainage issues.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might be able to receive compensation if they can prove that their premises do not meet the Healthy Homes Standards.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs showing standing water after rain and the lack of confirmation of connection to a proper outfall system mattered.