What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5058071 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5058071?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5058071?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5058071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11910784-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5058071 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5058071?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5058071?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5058071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11910784-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5058071 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5058071 — net $2,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$2,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,027.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Raglan Rentals Limited As Agent For Hayley Smith must pay [The tenant/s] $2,027.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

This matter was part heard by the Tribunal on 31 January 2025 and 31 March 2025.
Both parties attended this remote hearing on 16 May 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 16 February 2024 and was a fixed term tenancy through to the 16th of February 2025. The tenant said that she would be leaving the premises the week after this matter was heard.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. In this matter the burden of proof is with the tenant.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
The tenant applications to the Tribunal are for; o Work orders. o Failure to maintain. o Breach of the healthy home standards due to a leaking roof. o Compensation for loss of amenity due to being unable to use a bedroom from the end of January 2025 o Compensation for the costs of running a deep dehumidifier. o Application that the landlords 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy is invalid. o Work Orders
The tenant’s original application for work orders related to a leak in the roof. The tenant accepts that the work has now been satisfactorily carried out. Work orders are no longer sought, but the tenants application includes an application that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises. Failure to maintain. [The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 RTA. Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this obligation 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 RTA.
The tenant said that within a matter of weeks of the tenancy commencing, she discovered that the roof leaked. The matter was raised with the landlord by email dated 3 March 2024. A temporary repair was carried out in June 2024. The tenant said that months passed without anything being done. The matter was brought to a head as a result of a small electrical fire. The fire was relatively minor in nature and there was limited damage.
The parties attended mediation and the Tribunal issued an order dated 3 December 2024. The order records that the parties agreed that there was a leak in the roof. Dampness and potential mould head been identified. The landlord had scheduled a repair for 20 January 2025 and anticipated that all issues would be resolved at that time.
The matter came before the Tribunal again on 31 January 2025. The tenant said at the hearing that whilst the leak in the roof had been repaired satisfactorily, the landlord’s electrician was not scheduled to arrive until Wednesday 5 February 2025, which was outside the time agreed in the mediated order dated 3 December 2024. The tenant said that the electrical and mould issues had not been resolved. Those issues were a direct result of the leak in the roof.
The landlord was required to obtain a report from an appropriate contractor as to the presence of moisture in the ceiling cavity and any mould. The landlord has now obtained that report. The report confirms that there is no longer an issue with mould or moisture in the ceiling cavity. I accept the evidence set out in that report.
A landlord must provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. The landlord’s obligation for repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage and a tenant must notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises and the need for repair.
A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV -2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 the District Court held; “... the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a time frame 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 might be.”
A tenant may give the landlord a 14 day notice to remedy, but should do so in good faith to remedy a real and significant breach. However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlord knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation.
In this case, the tenant has both informed the landlord of the need for repair and subsequently provided the landlord with a 14 day notice to remedy dated 13 June 2024 and again on 31 January 2025. It is accepted by the parties that the repair is now complete. The issue for consideration by the Tribunal is whether that repair was completed by the landlord within a reasonable time.
A reasonable time to repair allows for all relevant circumstances. Whilst each case must be considered on its specific facts, the Tribunal has previously considered that there was a failure to repair within a reasonable time where repair took over two months (for blocked drains, sewage outflow, flooding of a front yard).
The leaking roof was first brought to the attention of the landlord within a month of the tenancy commencing. A temporary repair was carried out in June 2024. The leak was finally repaired in January 2025. I do not consider that a delay of this extent is a reasonable time, within which it might be expected that a landlord would complete the repairs. I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
The tenant said that her concerns about the leak and moisture in the ceiling resulted in her not using one of the bedrooms at the premises for an extended period. She had incurred increased electricity costs as a result of having a dehumidifier running.
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) RTA.
The landlord had ample time from the point in time when the tenant first raised the issue, within which to arrange appropriate contractors to complete the repairs. The delays in attending to the repairs can only have been intentional on the part of the landlord. No evidence of an explanation for the excessive delay was provided. The landlord failed to comply with the time requirements of the mediators order. It is in the best interests of this tenant and tenants generally to have landlords comply with their obligations to maintain premises.
Having considered the delays by the landlord, the effect on the tenant and the loss of amenity in being able to use all of the tenanted rooms, I consider that an award of exemplary damages of $2,000.00 to be appropriate.
The tenant’s application also includes applications in relation to a breach of the healthy homes standards, loss of amenity and the costs of running a dehumidifier. I have taken those factors into account in setting the level of exemplary damages. Any further award of compensation for those issues would amount to a doubling up of the orders against the landlord. The order for exemplary damages takes into a consideration all of those factors. Notice to terminate tenancy.
The tenant’s application to the Tribunal included an application as to the validity of the landlord's notice to terminate the tenancy. The landlord indicated that the premises were potentially required for a new school principal.
The tenant said that it was not clear if a new principal would require the premises.
A copy of the advertisement for a new school principal was provided in evidence. That advertisement indicated that the role would potentially come with a house. Having considered the evidence, I find that the notice of termination of the tenancy was provided on the grounds that the premises would need to be available for the new school principal. I do not consider that the notice was motivated either wholly or in part in retaliation for the tenants actions. The tenants application as to the termination notice is dismissed.
As the tenant has substantially succeeded with this claim, I have ordered the landlord to reimburse the filing fee. The tenant has filed two applications in this matter and seeks reimbursement of the filing fee on in both. I consider it appropriate for reimbursement of a single filing fee to be ordered.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the tenant’s name and details is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the landlord’s application is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5058071 — net $2,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$2,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,027.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Raglan Rentals Limited As Agent For Hayley Smith must pay [The tenant/s] $2,027.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

This matter was part heard by the Tribunal on 31 January 2025 and 31 March 2025.
Both parties attended this remote hearing on 16 May 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 16 February 2024 and was a fixed term tenancy through to the 16th of February 2025. The tenant said that she would be leaving the premises the week after this matter was heard.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. In this matter the burden of proof is with the tenant.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
The tenant applications to the Tribunal are for; o Work orders. o Failure to maintain. o Breach of the healthy home standards due to a leaking roof. o Compensation for loss of amenity due to being unable to use a bedroom from the end of January 2025 o Compensation for the costs of running a deep dehumidifier. o Application that the landlords 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy is invalid. o Work Orders
The tenant’s original application for work orders related to a leak in the roof. The tenant accepts that the work has now been satisfactorily carried out. Work orders are no longer sought, but the tenants application includes an application that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises. Failure to maintain. [The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 RTA. Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this obligation 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 RTA.
The tenant said that within a matter of weeks of the tenancy commencing, she discovered that the roof leaked. The matter was raised with the landlord by email dated 3 March 2024. A temporary repair was carried out in June 2024. The tenant said that months passed without anything being done. The matter was brought to a head as a result of a small electrical fire. The fire was relatively minor in nature and there was limited damage.
The parties attended mediation and the Tribunal issued an order dated 3 December 2024. The order records that the parties agreed that there was a leak in the roof. Dampness and potential mould head been identified. The landlord had scheduled a repair for 20 January 2025 and anticipated that all issues would be resolved at that time.
The matter came before the Tribunal again on 31 January 2025. The tenant said at the hearing that whilst the leak in the roof had been repaired satisfactorily, the landlord’s electrician was not scheduled to arrive until Wednesday 5 February 2025, which was outside the time agreed in the mediated order dated 3 December 2024. The tenant said that the electrical and mould issues had not been resolved. Those issues were a direct result of the leak in the roof.
The landlord was required to obtain a report from an appropriate contractor as to the presence of moisture in the ceiling cavity and any mould. The landlord has now obtained that report. The report confirms that there is no longer an issue with mould or moisture in the ceiling cavity. I accept the evidence set out in that report.
A landlord must provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. The landlord’s obligation for repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage and a tenant must notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises and the need for repair.
A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV -2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 the District Court held; “... the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a time frame 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 might be.”
A tenant may give the landlord a 14 day notice to remedy, but should do so in good faith to remedy a real and significant breach. However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlord knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation.
In this case, the tenant has both informed the landlord of the need for repair and subsequently provided the landlord with a 14 day notice to remedy dated 13 June 2024 and again on 31 January 2025. It is accepted by the parties that the repair is now complete. The issue for consideration by the Tribunal is whether that repair was completed by the landlord within a reasonable time.
A reasonable time to repair allows for all relevant circumstances. Whilst each case must be considered on its specific facts, the Tribunal has previously considered that there was a failure to repair within a reasonable time where repair took over two months (for blocked drains, sewage outflow, flooding of a front yard).
The leaking roof was first brought to the attention of the landlord within a month of the tenancy commencing. A temporary repair was carried out in June 2024. The leak was finally repaired in January 2025. I do not consider that a delay of this extent is a reasonable time, within which it might be expected that a landlord would complete the repairs. I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
The tenant said that her concerns about the leak and moisture in the ceiling resulted in her not using one of the bedrooms at the premises for an extended period. She had incurred increased electricity costs as a result of having a dehumidifier running.
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) RTA.
The landlord had ample time from the point in time when the tenant first raised the issue, within which to arrange appropriate contractors to complete the repairs. The delays in attending to the repairs can only have been intentional on the part of the landlord. No evidence of an explanation for the excessive delay was provided. The landlord failed to comply with the time requirements of the mediators order. It is in the best interests of this tenant and tenants generally to have landlords comply with their obligations to maintain premises.
Having considered the delays by the landlord, the effect on the tenant and the loss of amenity in being able to use all of the tenanted rooms, I consider that an award of exemplary damages of $2,000.00 to be appropriate.
The tenant’s application also includes applications in relation to a breach of the healthy homes standards, loss of amenity and the costs of running a dehumidifier. I have taken those factors into account in setting the level of exemplary damages. Any further award of compensation for those issues would amount to a doubling up of the orders against the landlord. The order for exemplary damages takes into a consideration all of those factors. Notice to terminate tenancy.
The tenant’s application to the Tribunal included an application as to the validity of the landlord's notice to terminate the tenancy. The landlord indicated that the premises were potentially required for a new school principal.
The tenant said that it was not clear if a new principal would require the premises.
A copy of the advertisement for a new school principal was provided in evidence. That advertisement indicated that the role would potentially come with a house. Having considered the evidence, I find that the notice of termination of the tenancy was provided on the grounds that the premises would need to be available for the new school principal. I do not consider that the notice was motivated either wholly or in part in retaliation for the tenants actions. The tenants application as to the termination notice is dismissed.
As the tenant has substantially succeeded with this claim, I have ordered the landlord to reimburse the filing fee. The tenant has filed two applications in this matter and seeks reimbursement of the filing fee on in both. I consider it appropriate for reimbursement of a single filing fee to be ordered.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the tenant’s name and details is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the landlord’s application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5058071 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5058071 — Exemplary damages

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