What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5153276 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 5153276?

Failure To Provide Vacant Possession: $735.22 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Loss Of Use Of Deck: $200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153276?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153276?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11851697-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5153276 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 5153276?

Failure To Provide Vacant Possession: $735.22 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Loss Of Use Of Deck: $200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153276?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153276?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11851697-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5153276 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5153276 — net $962.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Failure to provide vacant possession	$735.22	Failure to provide vacant possession
Loss of use of deck	$200.00	Loss of use of deck
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$962.22
Bond	$2,316.57
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$962.22

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Rent Sure Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $962.22 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,316.57 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately. The balance of the bond ($2,483.43) remains at the Bond Centre.
Rent Sure Limited must file an application claiming against the bond by 5pm on Friday 23 May 2025. If no application is filed the tenant may request a Tribunal order for the remaining bond to be paid to her.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today, 15 May 2025.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, compensation and exemplary damages following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed an application. I have directed that the landlord files an application and uploads all supporting documents.
The parties entered into a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 15 July 2023 to 19 July 2024. The weekly rent was initially $1,200.00 with a bond of $4,800.00.
On 15 October 2024 the landlord served a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy on 13 January 2025. Vacant Possession
The tenant said (in effect) that she did not have vacant possession of the premises on the day the tenancy started. The tenant was entitled to vacant possession on 15 July 2023 pursuant to section 37 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenant hired a vehicle on 15 July 2023 to move in. The parties had agreed to perform an ingoing inspection on 15 July 2023 at 11.30am. Earlier that month, the tenant attempted to move the inspection to an earlier date without success. By the time the inspection was completed at 2.30pm, the tenant only had the assistance of movers and a vehicle for 1½ hours. The tenant had to extend the vehicle hire and pay the movers to stay longer.
The landlord said they had agreed the tenant could move some belongings into the property before 15 July 2023, but had advised that this should not hinder the entry inspection. They emphasised that the inspection had been arranged by agreement for 15 July 2023. The landlord provided photographs and said the garage was full of the tenant’s belongings and they could not access the living room during the inspection. When the issue was raised in correspondence the landlord said that the tenancy only became valid once the entry inspection had been completed. They also suggested the tenant could not move in before the inspection was completed.
The tenancy agreement, signed on 20 June 2023, required that the landlord provide vacant possession on 15 July 2023, being the date on which the tenant was entitled to occupation of the premises. It is evident that this did not happen. The landlord had not yet performed an exit/entry inspection and there were still some items belonging to the owner and the previous tenant. Contrary to the landlord’s view, it was not for the tenant to arrange to move in after the inspection. I consider it was for the landlord to ensure the tenant could move in on 15 July 2023 without hindrance.
I award compensation of $249.51 for the extended rental of the moving truck, $300.00 for additional after-hours mover costs, and $185.71 (one day’s rent) for the failure to give vacant possession on 15 July 2023 (a total award of $735.22). Maintenance
The tenant said the landlord failed to maintain the outside deck. This was identified as an issue at an inspection in November 2024. Because this created a trip hazard, the tenant was unable to use the deck for the last couple of months of the tenancy.
The landlord decided not to perform repairs because the tenancy was due to end on 13 January 2025 and arranging a builder would take time. The owner thought it would be better to perform works when the premises were empty.
The tenant reported a leak in the premises at inspections in July and November 2024. Because the source of the leak could not be identified, the tenant stopped using the downstairs bathroom.
The landlord reported the problem to the owner, but no work was performed because it was unclear what was causing the problem. My impression is that the leak was not very serious, although by 11 December 2024 the tenant said the gib in the downstairs bathroom had started to crack. This is visible in one of the photographs.
The tenants were unable to use an upstairs bathroom due to fear of worsening the leak, but this 6-bedroom property apparently had 5 bathrooms. The inconvenience would likely have been minimal, and as noted above, it is not evident that the leak was causing any physical discomfort or concern.
The loss of use of the deck over the summer would have caused the tenant some loss of amenity. I can understand why the landlord decided to put a repair off until the end of the tenancy. At the same time, the tenant was paying rent for an area of the premises which they did not feel was safe to use. The tenant said a couple of their visitors tripped on the uneven surface.
I award compensation of $200.00 for loss of use of the deck for approximately 2 months over the summer. Bond Lodgement
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received (section 19(1) of the Act).
The tenant claimed exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond in time. She said the bond was paid on 23 June 2023 and was not lodged until 5 September 2023. The tenant said this was more than 23 working days later.
The landlord said the 23 days only runs from the date of the tenancy agreement. They explained that they manage many properties and knew they had to lodge the bond. However, a sudden bereavement meant they had to return to China, and they were unable to lodge the bond from there.
The Act is clear that the bond must be lodged within 23 working days of receipt. However, I am not satisfied that it would be just to award exemplary damages. The bond was funded by WINZ rather than directly out of the tenant’s pocket and was lodged well before the end of the tenancy. The landlords have provided an explanation, which I accept, about why the bond was not lodged earlier. This mitigates their culpability. Further, there has been no prejudice to the tenant from the late lodgement. Business Records
A landlord must keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant (section 30 of the Act).
The tenant said the landlord had failed to keep sufficient records as required by the Act. She said the landlord had taken 3-4 days to provide a rent summary showing she had been regularly paying rent. This meant she missed out on renting a new property.
The landlord only had to provide rent information within a reasonable time. I consider the landlord did so. They explained that, as a small business, they had to prepare the rent summary manually, without the benefit of property management software. Refund of Bond
The tenant sought refund of the bond. The landlord attempted to present claims for 3 days’ rent for the period 11-13 January 2025 ($557.14) water charges ($511.79) cleaning ($460.00) wall repairs (402.50) and door repairs ($552.00). The claim totals $2,483.43 plus the filing fee.
The landlord was required by section 22B of the Act to file their own application against the bond. The landlord had not filed any documents (I was told that the landlord was unable to upload documents to Tenancy Services) and did not bring copies of documents to the hearing. An attempt to receive documents electronically during the hearing became increasingly time-consuming and burdensome for the Registry.
The non-disputed part of the bond ($4,800.00 minus $2,483.43 = $2,316.57) should be refunded to the tenant. I make an order to that effect.
The landlord is directed to file an application for the bond. If this has not been achieved by Friday 23 May 2025, the tenant may request an order from the Tribunal for reimbursement of the remaining bond at the Bond Centre.
The landlord should provide an updated rent summary, the water supplier’s invoices, a summary of the water charges showing the invoiced amounts and payments received, photographs of the cleaning and repairs, and all supporting invoices. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
The tenant’s application has been partly successful. I award the filing fee and grant suppression as requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5153276 — net $962.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Failure to provide vacant possession	$735.22	Failure to provide vacant possession
Loss of use of deck	$200.00	Loss of use of deck
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$962.22
Bond	$2,316.57
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$962.22

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Rent Sure Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $962.22 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,316.57 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately. The balance of the bond ($2,483.43) remains at the Bond Centre.
Rent Sure Limited must file an application claiming against the bond by 5pm on Friday 23 May 2025. If no application is filed the tenant may request a Tribunal order for the remaining bond to be paid to her.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today, 15 May 2025.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, compensation and exemplary damages following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed an application. I have directed that the landlord files an application and uploads all supporting documents.
The parties entered into a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 15 July 2023 to 19 July 2024. The weekly rent was initially $1,200.00 with a bond of $4,800.00.
On 15 October 2024 the landlord served a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy on 13 January 2025. Vacant Possession
The tenant said (in effect) that she did not have vacant possession of the premises on the day the tenancy started. The tenant was entitled to vacant possession on 15 July 2023 pursuant to section 37 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenant hired a vehicle on 15 July 2023 to move in. The parties had agreed to perform an ingoing inspection on 15 July 2023 at 11.30am. Earlier that month, the tenant attempted to move the inspection to an earlier date without success. By the time the inspection was completed at 2.30pm, the tenant only had the assistance of movers and a vehicle for 1½ hours. The tenant had to extend the vehicle hire and pay the movers to stay longer.
The landlord said they had agreed the tenant could move some belongings into the property before 15 July 2023, but had advised that this should not hinder the entry inspection. They emphasised that the inspection had been arranged by agreement for 15 July 2023. The landlord provided photographs and said the garage was full of the tenant’s belongings and they could not access the living room during the inspection. When the issue was raised in correspondence the landlord said that the tenancy only became valid once the entry inspection had been completed. They also suggested the tenant could not move in before the inspection was completed.
The tenancy agreement, signed on 20 June 2023, required that the landlord provide vacant possession on 15 July 2023, being the date on which the tenant was entitled to occupation of the premises. It is evident that this did not happen. The landlord had not yet performed an exit/entry inspection and there were still some items belonging to the owner and the previous tenant. Contrary to the landlord’s view, it was not for the tenant to arrange to move in after the inspection. I consider it was for the landlord to ensure the tenant could move in on 15 July 2023 without hindrance.
I award compensation of $249.51 for the extended rental of the moving truck, $300.00 for additional after-hours mover costs, and $185.71 (one day’s rent) for the failure to give vacant possession on 15 July 2023 (a total award of $735.22). Maintenance
The tenant said the landlord failed to maintain the outside deck. This was identified as an issue at an inspection in November 2024. Because this created a trip hazard, the tenant was unable to use the deck for the last couple of months of the tenancy.
The landlord decided not to perform repairs because the tenancy was due to end on 13 January 2025 and arranging a builder would take time. The owner thought it would be better to perform works when the premises were empty.
The tenant reported a leak in the premises at inspections in July and November 2024. Because the source of the leak could not be identified, the tenant stopped using the downstairs bathroom.
The landlord reported the problem to the owner, but no work was performed because it was unclear what was causing the problem. My impression is that the leak was not very serious, although by 11 December 2024 the tenant said the gib in the downstairs bathroom had started to crack. This is visible in one of the photographs.
The tenants were unable to use an upstairs bathroom due to fear of worsening the leak, but this 6-bedroom property apparently had 5 bathrooms. The inconvenience would likely have been minimal, and as noted above, it is not evident that the leak was causing any physical discomfort or concern.
The loss of use of the deck over the summer would have caused the tenant some loss of amenity. I can understand why the landlord decided to put a repair off until the end of the tenancy. At the same time, the tenant was paying rent for an area of the premises which they did not feel was safe to use. The tenant said a couple of their visitors tripped on the uneven surface.
I award compensation of $200.00 for loss of use of the deck for approximately 2 months over the summer. Bond Lodgement
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received (section 19(1) of the Act).
The tenant claimed exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond in time. She said the bond was paid on 23 June 2023 and was not lodged until 5 September 2023. The tenant said this was more than 23 working days later.
The landlord said the 23 days only runs from the date of the tenancy agreement. They explained that they manage many properties and knew they had to lodge the bond. However, a sudden bereavement meant they had to return to China, and they were unable to lodge the bond from there.
The Act is clear that the bond must be lodged within 23 working days of receipt. However, I am not satisfied that it would be just to award exemplary damages. The bond was funded by WINZ rather than directly out of the tenant’s pocket and was lodged well before the end of the tenancy. The landlords have provided an explanation, which I accept, about why the bond was not lodged earlier. This mitigates their culpability. Further, there has been no prejudice to the tenant from the late lodgement. Business Records
A landlord must keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant (section 30 of the Act).
The tenant said the landlord had failed to keep sufficient records as required by the Act. She said the landlord had taken 3-4 days to provide a rent summary showing she had been regularly paying rent. This meant she missed out on renting a new property.
The landlord only had to provide rent information within a reasonable time. I consider the landlord did so. They explained that, as a small business, they had to prepare the rent summary manually, without the benefit of property management software. Refund of Bond
The tenant sought refund of the bond. The landlord attempted to present claims for 3 days’ rent for the period 11-13 January 2025 ($557.14) water charges ($511.79) cleaning ($460.00) wall repairs (402.50) and door repairs ($552.00). The claim totals $2,483.43 plus the filing fee.
The landlord was required by section 22B of the Act to file their own application against the bond. The landlord had not filed any documents (I was told that the landlord was unable to upload documents to Tenancy Services) and did not bring copies of documents to the hearing. An attempt to receive documents electronically during the hearing became increasingly time-consuming and burdensome for the Registry.
The non-disputed part of the bond ($4,800.00 minus $2,483.43 = $2,316.57) should be refunded to the tenant. I make an order to that effect.
The landlord is directed to file an application for the bond. If this has not been achieved by Friday 23 May 2025, the tenant may request an order from the Tribunal for reimbursement of the remaining bond at the Bond Centre.
The landlord should provide an updated rent summary, the water supplier’s invoices, a summary of the water charges showing the invoiced amounts and payments received, photographs of the cleaning and repairs, and all supporting invoices. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
The tenant’s application has been partly successful. I award the filing fee and grant suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5153276 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5153276 — Tenancy dispute

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