What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5146169 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 5146169?

Compensation: Tidy Up Fallen Tree: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $360.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $749.73 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146169?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146169?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11636230-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5146169 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 5146169?

Compensation: Tidy Up Fallen Tree: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $360.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $749.73 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146169?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146169?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11636230-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5146169 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5146169 — net $139.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Vacated rubbish removal, repairs, final water	$749.73		Vacated rubbish removal, repairs, final water
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Tidy up fallen tree		$250.00	Tidy up fallen tree
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy		$360.00	Failure to comply with healthy
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$776.73	$637.00
Net award	$139.73
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$139.73

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5146169 — net $139.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Vacated rubbish removal, repairs, final water	$749.73		Vacated rubbish removal, repairs, final water
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Tidy up fallen tree		$250.00	Tidy up fallen tree
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy		$360.00	Failure to comply with healthy
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$776.73	$637.00
Net award	$139.73
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$139.73

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Riverstone Rentals Limited $139.73 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Riverstone Rentals Limited: $139.73 [The tenant/s]: $2,260.27

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 6 November 2023 and ended on 13 October 2024. The tenancy was originally managed by [Real Estate Company]. During the tenancy, management changed to Riverstone Rentals Ltd.
The tenant’s application seeks refund of the bond and raises issues relating to maintenance and healthy homes. The landlord’s application seeks rubbish removal costs, repairs and painting, and final water rates.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 26 March 2025. Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Baker represented the landlord. Landlord application
[The tenant/s] accepted the landlord’s claims for water use to the end of the tenancy ($43.73), rubbish removal ($100.00), and repairs and painting of wall damage ($700.00).
[The tenant/s]’s only dispute about the landlord’s claim was that the amount owed to the landlord should be reduced by the cost of power that the landlord used after the end of the tenancy. Ms Baker confirmed that there was an agreement that the power would be kept on so that it was available for the carpet replacement work that was scheduled to take place at that time. Ms Baker said that the cost of the power used after the end of the tenancy was $92.00.
Therefore, the amount owed to the landlord is $776.73. Tenant application
The issues raised in the tenant’s application that potentially amount to breaches of the landlord’s legal duties are: a. Leaks / mould / dampness. b. Windows not shutting properly. c. No extractor fan in bathroom or kitchen until April 2024. d. Removal of fallen tree April 2024.
These issues are addressed in detail below.
For completeness I will also address several other issues that are mentioned in [The tenant/s]’s application and that were discussed at the hearing, which, for reasons discussed below, do not amount to a breach of the landlord’s legal duty. Leaks, mould, dampness
[The tenant/s] said that: a. Mould developed in parts of the property, in particular in the bathroom. b. There were signs of water damage / rot on the exterior cladding. c. When the shower or bath were used, water leaked through from the bathroom to the exterior, and tracked across the exterior cladding to the front doorsteps.
On 10 February 2024, [The tenant/s] sent Ms Baker an email raising several maintenance issues and referring to the dampness / mould problem as follows: Bathroom also going mouldy due to poor ventilation, walls are soft and spongy and visible damp on outside of wall of house (see photos), shower walls and joinery falling off
Ms Baker said that: a. Ms Baker said that the owner (who is a builder) investigated the ‘bathroom leak to exterior’ issue three times at the tenant’s request and could not find any problem. b. She did not see any mould or signs of water damage when she viewed the property. c. There have been no repairs, the property has been re-let, and the new tenants have not raised any concerns about mould, dampness, or leaks.
[The tenant/s] said that the bathroom mould situation improved after the landlord installed ventilation in April 2024.
I do not have any photographs showing mould in the property. I have a photograph of the exterior wall of the bathroom, but the photograph is not sufficient to prove a leak from the interior to the exterior.
I accept [The tenant/s]’s oral evidence about her experience of living in the property. The causes of dampness / mould can be varied and complex. The landlord’s duty to maintain the premises requires them to respond to issues raised by the tenant in a timely and appropriate manner. In this instance I accept that the landlord investigated the specific concern about a leak in the bathroom, and could not locate any leak.
The evidence provided to me does not establish a property fault / defect that the landlord failed to address.
Therefore I find that there is no basis for an award of compensation or exemplary damages under this heading. Windows
The property has older style wooden joinery with metal stays and latches.
[The tenant/s] said that: a. The windows, in particular the smaller windows, would not close properly. This includes the bathroom window. [The tenant/s] suggested that this could be part of a broader issue with the property shifting / sinking. [The tenant/s] noted that she also had problems with doors jamming or not staying closed, and there is a noticeable ‘sag’ in the kitchen ceiling. b. Many of the window latches were loose or missing. c. Two windows were cracked at the beginning of the tenancy and were not re-glazed until several months into the tenancy.
This issue was raised in [The tenant/s]’s 10 February email as follows: Window in front (small) bedroom still not repaired; almost all window latches inoperable or falling off / missing; window in middle bedroom still not repaired yet
Ms Baker acknowledged that there were two cracked windows at the start of the beginning of the tenancy, and there were delays in re-glazing those windows due to the unavailability of the glazier.
Ms Baker said that she was not aware of any windows not closing properly. She said that the owner replaced several latches during the tenancy.
Again, although I acknowledge [The tenant/s]’s description of her experience of living in the property, the evidence available to me is very limited, and not sufficient to be the basis of a finding that the landlord breached their duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The cracked windows took longer than ideal to be re-glazed, but the windows were intact. The landlord replaced some window latches and there is no evidence of [The tenant/s] raising this issue again after her 10 February email. There is also no evidence of [The tenant/s] raising the issue of ‘sticking’ windows.
Therefore there is no basis for me to make an award of compensation or exemplary damages in respect of this issue. Extractor fans
The healthy homes standards require mechanical ventilation in the bathroom and kitchen of tenanted premises, unless an exemption applies.
The healthy homes compliance date for this tenancy was 120 days after the start of the tenancy, which was 5 March 2024.
There were no extractor fans in the kitchen or bathroom at the start of this tenancy.
The landlord installed extractors in the kitchen and bathroom on 3 April 2024.
Ms Baker explained that the owner lives in [City], and there were some delays with him completing the work due to illness.
When the landlord attempted to install the rangehood in the kitchen he accidentally cut a wire, which meant that [The tenant/s] could not use her stove for that day and an electrician had to be involved.
Failure to comply with the healthy homes standards is an unlawful act, and exemplary damages of up to $7,200 can apply.
The landlord failed to comply with the healthy homes standard for ventilation by the compliance date.
In considering an award of exemplary damages for an unlawful act, the Tribunal must have regard to: 1 a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In this instance: a. I accept that the landlord intended to comply the healthy homes standards by the compliance date. It is not the case that the landlord ignored or disregarded the healthy homes requirements. b. The period of unlawful non-compliance was relatively brief. c. [The tenant/s] was experiencing problems with dampness, mould, and limited ventilation in the bathroom. d. There is a genuine public interest in ensuring that landlords are held to the healthy homes standards.
Having regard to the factors my finding is that it is appropriate to award exemplary damages at the very low end of the scale. I will award $360.00. Tree
On or around 12 April 2024 a large tree came down in a storm. The tree was located near the driveway and garage. Fortunately, it did not fall onto the driveway or garage, but onto a grassed area.
[The tenant/s] informed Ms Baker immediately, and Ms Baker informed the owner. 1 Section 109 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)
[The tenant/s] said that 3-4 weeks passed, and she heard nothing further from Ms Baker, so she and her partner cut up and removed the tree.
Ms Baker questioned [The tenant/s]’s timeframe, but she had no information about when the owner responded. Ms Baker could not clarify why the owner did not remove the tree before the tenant did it herself, but she noted that the weather was bad around that time (which [The tenant/s] acknowledged).
I agree that removal of the tree was the landlord’s responsibility. Given the lack of evidence around timeframe, and the fact that the fallen tree did not impede access or limit the use of the premises in any significant way, I will not award any compensation for loss of amenity. However, I will award the tenant some compensation for her and her partner’s time, and use of equipment (chainsaw, fuel, etc) in removing the tree.
I will award $250.00. Other issues
The following issues are in this category: a. The stove. b. Comments made by the owners when he was at the property carrying out work. c. The laundry floor. d. The heat pump. The stove
At the beginning of the tenancy it was noted that the seals on the oven were loose and needed to be repaired or replaced.
In her 10 February 2024 email, [The tenant/s] said: Stovetop elements only go on full heat, not low/simmer; oven unable to use for baking due to seals
The stove was replaced on or around 26 February.
Ms Baker said that the owner recalled visiting the property in early December 2023 to carry out work on the stove. [The tenant/s] said that the first time that she saw the owner in the property was in February 2024.
Again I have insufficient evidence to make a finding about whether owner carried out work on the stove in December 2023.
The known issue at the start of the tenancy was the seals around the oven. The stove could still be used with that defect present. In February 2024 [The tenant/s] also noted a problem with the elements. The stove was replaced soon after [The tenant/s]’s email.
On this information, I am satisfied that there is no proven breach of the landlord’s maintenance duty. Comment by the owner
[The tenant/s] recalled an occasion when owner was at the property carrying out work. [The tenant/s] did not know that the person was the owner of the property, she thought he was a contractor. She only found out later that it was the owner. She said that he commented that the house was owned by “some [redacted]” and that he worked for them. [The tenant/s] said that her sister was present when this conversation took place.
Ms Baker said that the owner denies saying this.
I found [The tenant/s] to be credible in her oral evidence. The details that [The tenant/s] recalls about this incident are, in my view, too specific and unusual to be a fabrication or a mistaken understanding. I think it is more likely than not that the owner did make the comment that [The tenant/s] alleges.
The comment was bizarre and obviously inappropriate. However, it does not amount to a breach of the landlord’s legal duties under the Residential Tenancies Act, that could be the basis of an award of compensation or exemplary damages. Laundry floor
[The tenant/s] said that near the end of the tenancy her foot went through part of the laundry floor.
Ms Baker confirmed that there was a slow leak behind the laundry tub that gradually compromised the wooden floor.
Fortunately, [The tenant/s] was not injured.
I accept that neither the landlord nor the tenant was aware of the leak. Heat pump
[The tenant/s] said that the heat pump was working inefficiently during the tenancy so she checked the filters and found that they were very clogged and dirty. She cleaned them and the heat pump worked better.
Ms Baker said that she asked the owner about the heat pump and he said that he had cleaned and serviced it before the tenancy.
I agree that cleaning the heat pump filters is part of the landlord’s maintenance obligation.
The evidence available to me is very limited and anecdotal. There is no proven breach of the landlord’s maintenance duty. Agency
I was provided with a copy of the written tenancy agreement between [Real Estate Company] and [The tenant/s].
The agreement does not name the owner of the premises, but the wording of the agreement makes it sufficiently clear that [Real Estate Company] entered into the agreement as an agent, for and on behalf of the owner.
Riverstone Rentals did not enter into a new agreement with [The tenant/s]. They took over management on the same terms as the original agreement.
In its application to this Tribunal, Riverstone Rentals described itself as “Riverstone Rentals Ltd, as agent for owner”. I agree that this is correct. Bond, filing fee, name suppression
Both parties were successful or partially successful in their applications, and both are entitled to be awarded the filing fee for their application. 2
The tenant sought name suppression. I am satisfied that [The tenant/s] was substantially successful in respect of the disputed parts of the proceedings, and name suppression is granted on that basis. 3
Riverstone Rentals will receive $139.73 from the bond. The balance will be released to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5146169 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5146169 — 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