What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5039908 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5039908?

Agreed Plumbing Costs Payable By Ten…: $85.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to fix broken…: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: faulty gas cooktop ign…: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: reimbursement of bedro…: $69.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Months After Start Of Tenancy: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Reasonable Time From The Start Of Th…: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Tenant Endured 15 Visits By Tradespe…: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $40.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5039908?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5039908?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12185542-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5039908 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5039908?

Agreed Plumbing Costs Payable By Ten…: $85.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to fix broken…: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: faulty gas cooktop ign…: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: reimbursement of bedro…: $69.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Months After Start Of Tenancy: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Reasonable Time From The Start Of Th…: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Tenant Endured 15 Visits By Tradespe…: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $40.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5039908?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5039908?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12185542-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

2 George Laurenson Lane, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5039908 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5039908 — net $7,820.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates: agreed final water bill payable by tenant	$40.25		Water rates: agreed final water bill payable by tenant
Agreed plumbing costs payable by tenant	$85.00		Agreed plumbing costs payable by tenant
Exemplary damages: failure to install working smoke		$3,500.00	failure to install working smoke
alarms to the entire premises (only one smoke alarm in		$500.00	alarms to the entire premises (only one smoke alarm in
Compensation: reimbursement of bedroom broken lock		$69.00	reimbursement of bedroom broken lock
Compensation: failure to fix broken steps within a		$350.00	failure to fix broken steps within a
reasonable time from the start of the tenancy		$600.00	reasonable time from the start of the tenancy
Compensation: faulty gas cooktop igniter, only fixed 4		$350.00	faulty gas cooktop igniter, only fixed 4
months after start of tenancy		$500.00	months after start of tenancy
Exemplary damages: failure to provide insurance		$600.00	failure to provide insurance
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment while the		$750.00	breach of quiet enjoyment while the
tenant endured 15 visits by tradespeople, landlord's		$700.00	tenant endured 15 visits by tradespeople, landlord's
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$125.25	$7,946.00
Net award		$7,820.75
Bond		$2,350.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$7,820.75

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Nishtha Investments Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $7,820.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,350.00 ( [Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy has ended on 27 July 2025. The parties agreed for the bond to be refunded to the tenant subject to the tenant paying the last water bill and plumbing invoice set out in table above. Landlord’s maintenance obligations
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must: a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; c) comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016; and d) comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A tenant has a corresponding duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs (see section 40(1)(d) RTA).
The landlord’s obligation is therefore to repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair, either from observing the property or notice from the tenant: “... the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be.” (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010; see also Merwald Real Estate v Lanauze DC Auckland, MA151-89, 2 May 1989).
Compensation ought to be awarded for breach of the landlord’s obligations and where the other party has suffered a loss or inconvenience because of that breach.
It goes without saying that only if the landlord is found to in breach of their obligations under section 45 (as set out above) and the tenant has carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify and allow maintenance to be attended to, would an award of compensation be considered and made. Where the tenant has not carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify or not allow maintenance to be attended to, no award of compensation will be made.
I now address the specific instances of complaints raised by the tenant of items requiring attention, when the landlord was advised of the issue, and when, if any, the repairs and works had been (or never) carried out during the tenancy and if not, why they haven’t been carried out or attended to.
The landlord failed to install adequate number of working smoke alarms to the premises at the start of the tenancy. There was only one smoke alarm installed in one of 5 bedrooms and none in the other areas of the house. I find the landlord have committed an unlawful act.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Having regard to those factors, I order the landlord to pay exemplary damages of $3,500.00 for the serious failure to install adequate smoke alarms which is a major breach of the landlord’s health and safety obligations. The landlord provided no reasonable explanation on why he has not provided the smoke alarms. The landlord is experienced, having rented out properties and being a landlord for 20 years.
I allow the tenant’s claim for reimbursement of costs to attend to a broken bedroom lock of $69.00.
I award the tenant compensation for the landlord’s failure to fix broken steps within a reasonable time from the start of the tenancy of $350.00 and $600.00 compensation for the faulty gas cooktop igniter, which was only fixed 4 months after start of tenancy.
The landlord failed to provide the premises in reasonably clean and tidy condition, leaving behind rubbish at start of tenancy which greatly inconvenienced the tenant. The premises were only clear of rubbish the week after the tenant has moved in. I award the tenant compensation for the inconvenience suffered of $500.00.
Lastly, the landlord deliberately failed to attend to heatpump remote issues ten days prior to the end of tenancy. The tenant had complained about the cold in the winter months, but the landlord considered that since the tenant was vacating in 10 days, no remedial work was required!
I award $700.00 in favour of the tenant for the landlord’s deliberate breach to ensure that the heatpump remote control and therefore heatpump is in working order within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair as texted by the tenant on 17 July 2025. It was no excuse for the landlord to ignore the tenant’s notification despite the tenancy coming to an end on 27 July 2025. Landlord’s obligation to provide healthy homes compliance statement
[The tenant/s]he landlord breached their obligations under section 13A(1CA) and (1CB) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) which requires the landlord to provide a written signed healthy homes compliance statement which must be included in all new, renewed or varied tenancy agreements.
Breaching the requirement under section 13A(1CA) and (1CB) of the RTA without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the failure, and having regard to section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, I find it appropriate to award exemplary damages of $500.00 in favour of the tenant. Tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises being interfered with
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has breached her quiet enjoyment and harassed her.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
I find that the landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment while the tenant endured 15 visits by tradespeople, landlord's property manager and former tenants in first 12 weeks of the tenancy. The property was not in a fully tenantable condition at the start of the tenancy. The property required a lot of remedial work which were identified by the tenant at the start of the tenancy.
I award general damages in favour of the tenant of $750.00 for the interference to her quiet enjoyment on the first 3 months of her tenancy.
However I do not consider that the landlord has intentionally breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment to an extent which amounts to harassment.
I therefore make no award of exemplary damages against the landlord on the tenant’s claim based on harassment. Landlord’s bond lodgment obligation
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to lodge the bond within the required time. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Having regard to the fact that the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally, I award exemplary damages of $600.00 in favour of the tenant. The tenant paid the bond on 9 September but the landlord only lodged it on 18 October 2024 after the tenant had filed an application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Landlord’s obligation to provide insurance statement on tenancy agreement
The landlord also breach the insurance disclosure requirements under section 13A(2) RTA. The landlord must include in the tenancy agreement the following information about insurance of the premises: (a) if the premises are not insured, a statement that they are not insured; and (b) if the premises are insured, a statement setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability.
Breaching the insurance disclosure obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the failure, and having regard to section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, I find it appropriate to award exemplary damages of $350.00 in favour of the tenant.
Only the above amounts ordered are proved.
The tenant is largely successful on her claims. She is entitled to an order for name suppression and reimbursement of the filing fee accordingly.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5039908 — net $7,820.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates: agreed final water bill payable by tenant	$40.25		Water rates: agreed final water bill payable by tenant
Agreed plumbing costs payable by tenant	$85.00		Agreed plumbing costs payable by tenant
Exemplary damages: failure to install working smoke		$3,500.00	failure to install working smoke
alarms to the entire premises (only one smoke alarm in		$500.00	alarms to the entire premises (only one smoke alarm in
Compensation: reimbursement of bedroom broken lock		$69.00	reimbursement of bedroom broken lock
Compensation: failure to fix broken steps within a		$350.00	failure to fix broken steps within a
reasonable time from the start of the tenancy		$600.00	reasonable time from the start of the tenancy
Compensation: faulty gas cooktop igniter, only fixed 4		$350.00	faulty gas cooktop igniter, only fixed 4
months after start of tenancy		$500.00	months after start of tenancy
Exemplary damages: failure to provide insurance		$600.00	failure to provide insurance
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment while the		$750.00	breach of quiet enjoyment while the
tenant endured 15 visits by tradespeople, landlord's		$700.00	tenant endured 15 visits by tradespeople, landlord's
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$125.25	$7,946.00
Net award		$7,820.75
Bond		$2,350.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$7,820.75

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Nishtha Investments Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $7,820.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,350.00 ( [Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy has ended on 27 July 2025. The parties agreed for the bond to be refunded to the tenant subject to the tenant paying the last water bill and plumbing invoice set out in table above. Landlord’s maintenance obligations
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must: a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; c) comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016; and d) comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A tenant has a corresponding duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs (see section 40(1)(d) RTA).
The landlord’s obligation is therefore to repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair, either from observing the property or notice from the tenant: “... the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be.” (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010; see also Merwald Real Estate v Lanauze DC Auckland, MA151-89, 2 May 1989).
Compensation ought to be awarded for breach of the landlord’s obligations and where the other party has suffered a loss or inconvenience because of that breach.
It goes without saying that only if the landlord is found to in breach of their obligations under section 45 (as set out above) and the tenant has carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify and allow maintenance to be attended to, would an award of compensation be considered and made. Where the tenant has not carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify or not allow maintenance to be attended to, no award of compensation will be made.
I now address the specific instances of complaints raised by the tenant of items requiring attention, when the landlord was advised of the issue, and when, if any, the repairs and works had been (or never) carried out during the tenancy and if not, why they haven’t been carried out or attended to.
The landlord failed to install adequate number of working smoke alarms to the premises at the start of the tenancy. There was only one smoke alarm installed in one of 5 bedrooms and none in the other areas of the house. I find the landlord have committed an unlawful act.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Having regard to those factors, I order the landlord to pay exemplary damages of $3,500.00 for the serious failure to install adequate smoke alarms which is a major breach of the landlord’s health and safety obligations. The landlord provided no reasonable explanation on why he has not provided the smoke alarms. The landlord is experienced, having rented out properties and being a landlord for 20 years.
I allow the tenant’s claim for reimbursement of costs to attend to a broken bedroom lock of $69.00.
I award the tenant compensation for the landlord’s failure to fix broken steps within a reasonable time from the start of the tenancy of $350.00 and $600.00 compensation for the faulty gas cooktop igniter, which was only fixed 4 months after start of tenancy.
The landlord failed to provide the premises in reasonably clean and tidy condition, leaving behind rubbish at start of tenancy which greatly inconvenienced the tenant. The premises were only clear of rubbish the week after the tenant has moved in. I award the tenant compensation for the inconvenience suffered of $500.00.
Lastly, the landlord deliberately failed to attend to heatpump remote issues ten days prior to the end of tenancy. The tenant had complained about the cold in the winter months, but the landlord considered that since the tenant was vacating in 10 days, no remedial work was required!
I award $700.00 in favour of the tenant for the landlord’s deliberate breach to ensure that the heatpump remote control and therefore heatpump is in working order within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair as texted by the tenant on 17 July 2025. It was no excuse for the landlord to ignore the tenant’s notification despite the tenancy coming to an end on 27 July 2025. Landlord’s obligation to provide healthy homes compliance statement
[The tenant/s]he landlord breached their obligations under section 13A(1CA) and (1CB) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) which requires the landlord to provide a written signed healthy homes compliance statement which must be included in all new, renewed or varied tenancy agreements.
Breaching the requirement under section 13A(1CA) and (1CB) of the RTA without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the failure, and having regard to section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, I find it appropriate to award exemplary damages of $500.00 in favour of the tenant. Tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises being interfered with
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has breached her quiet enjoyment and harassed her.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
I find that the landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment while the tenant endured 15 visits by tradespeople, landlord's property manager and former tenants in first 12 weeks of the tenancy. The property was not in a fully tenantable condition at the start of the tenancy. The property required a lot of remedial work which were identified by the tenant at the start of the tenancy.
I award general damages in favour of the tenant of $750.00 for the interference to her quiet enjoyment on the first 3 months of her tenancy.
However I do not consider that the landlord has intentionally breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment to an extent which amounts to harassment.
I therefore make no award of exemplary damages against the landlord on the tenant’s claim based on harassment. Landlord’s bond lodgment obligation
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to lodge the bond within the required time. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Having regard to the fact that the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally, I award exemplary damages of $600.00 in favour of the tenant. The tenant paid the bond on 9 September but the landlord only lodged it on 18 October 2024 after the tenant had filed an application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Landlord’s obligation to provide insurance statement on tenancy agreement
The landlord also breach the insurance disclosure requirements under section 13A(2) RTA. The landlord must include in the tenancy agreement the following information about insurance of the premises: (a) if the premises are not insured, a statement that they are not insured; and (b) if the premises are insured, a statement setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability.
Breaching the insurance disclosure obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the failure, and having regard to section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, I find it appropriate to award exemplary damages of $350.00 in favour of the tenant.
Only the above amounts ordered are proved.
The tenant is largely successful on her claims. She is entitled to an order for name suppression and reimbursement of the filing fee accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5039908 — Exemplary damages at 2 George Laurenson Lane, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5039908 — Exemplary damages at 2 George Laurenson Lane, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions