What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5181839 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 5181839?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5181839?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5181839?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11980676-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5181839 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 5181839?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5181839?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5181839?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11980676-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 502, 170 Taranaki Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5181839 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5181839 — net $627.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for loss of amenity	$500.00	Compensation for loss of amenity
Compensation for use of laundromat and time spent obtaining shower head and plug	$100.00	Compensation for use of laundromat and time spent obtaining shower head and plug
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$627.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$627.00

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.

[Tenant 1] confirmed that he had authority to represent [Tenant 2]. Tenant 1’s] father, [Name], appeared with him as a support person.

This tenancy began on 25 February 2025. The tenants filed this claim only two days later, on 27 February 2025, seeking work orders, compensation for maintenance and healthy homes breaches and exemplary damages for unlawful entry.

A mediation was held on 17 April 2025 and orders were made by consent for various work to take place. The tenants’ claim for compensation and exemplary damages was adjourned for determination in the Tribunal.

The tenancy ended on 3 May 2025 after the tenants gave notice. Onus and evidence

This is a claim by the tenants and so they bear the onus of proving their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).

There was a fairly large amount of evidence filed in relation to this claim. For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence but the parties can be assured that I have considered all of the evidence in preparing this decision. Compensation

The tenants say 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 the Healthy Homes Standards.

The tenants say that when they moved in the house wasn’t clean and that under the fridge and there was all sorts of dust and rubbish under there. They said that corners of the rooms and skirtings were not cleaned properly and the carpet was old. The tenants provided some photos of these areas.

The tenant said that in addition to the cleaning, the washing machine was broken, the knobs on the stove were broken, the oven didn’t work, the dishwasher was broken, the extractor fan for the kitchen did not vent outside (in breach of Healthy Homes standards), and the front door did not close easily, there were no plugs for the kitchen or bathroom sinks, the shower cord unravelled, and that on the second day the sink became blocked and wouldn’t drain.

The tenants seek compensation of $5,000. They say that they did a huge amount of cleaning at the outset, and that they had to use the laundromat for an extended period as the washing machine replaced until shortly after they moved out. They said that only two of the stove top knobs worked so they had to keep changing the knobs over and that the oven didn’t work at all. They said that they purchased a new shower head and plugs as part of the agreed orders at mediation and were refunded by the landlord.

The landlord said that the house was reasonably clean when the tenants moved provided photos showing the condition of the property. They accepted that it was not clean under the fridge and said that they do not usually check but will consider making this their usual practice going forward. They said that the carpet was old, as noted in the entry-inspection report, but that the carpet was clean.

The landlord said that despite their view that the property was reasonably clean, (with the exception of the area under the fridge) they arranged for a cleaner to attend to do further cleaning. They also arranged for a tradesperson to attend and inspect the oven, rangehood, cooktop, and dishwasher and to take measurements for the washing machine. However the tenants contacted them on 27 February 2025 to say that they would not allow access. The landlord says that they were never told about any problem with the front door.

The landlord said that as soon as they were able to gain access, following the mediation, the maintenance issues were rectified. The landlord provided an invoice from Appliance Repair Specialist Ltd for attendances on 11 and 24 March 2025. They ordered the washing machine the same day.

The landlord said that due to issues with their supplier there was a delay in the washing machine arriving. They accepted that the delay was unacceptable and that the tenants were inconvenienced.

The landlord denied any breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. They said they had an exemption for the kitchen extractor fan and produced a copy of the exemption certificate stating that the extractor fan could not be routed to the outside without the permission of the body corporate.

The landlord considered that some compensation should be paid to the tenant but disputed the amount claimed. The landlord pointed out that the tenant in fact paid less in rent throughout this short tenancy ($4,857.14) than the amount claimed in compensation.

Having considered all of the evidence I find that: a. The property was reasonably clean overall at the start of the tenancy but in some minor respects further cleaning was required. The tenants said that they had expected that the property would be professionally cleaned before moving in but there was no evidence proving that this had been agreed; b. The washing machine was not replaced in a timely manner and while some delay was caused by the tenants refusing access, most of the delay was caused by the landlord by failing to measure before the tenancy and when accessing on 11 March, and by not providing the tenants’ details for delivery; c. There was a delay in attending to the repair of other appliances but the tenants contributed to the delay by not allowing access for repairs; d. There was not sufficient evidence to prove that the tenants had told the landlord about any issues closing the front door; e. The tenants have not proven that the oven was not working, as the landlord’s invoice from their repairer states “checked oven and no issues working as it should”; and f. The extractor fan in the kitchen was exempted and so the landlord has not breached the Healthy Homes Standards.

I consider that the tenants are entitled to some compensation for loss of amenity as there were a number of issues experienced from the start of the tenancy. The tenancy was for a period of 9 weeks and 4 days. Taking into account all of the issues I consider that appropriate compensation for loss of amenity is one weeks’ rent ($500.00).

I also consider that, in addition, a further compensation of $100.00 should be awarded to cover the cost of attending the laundromat while there was no working washing machine and the inconvenience to the tenants in having to source and purchase the new shower head and plug. Exemplary damages

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.

A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenants say that on the second day of the tenancy, 26 February 2025, the bathroom sink became blocked and would not drain. They contacted the landlord. However on 27 February 2025 they were shocked to come home and find that the issue had been rectified without the landlord asking for permission to access the property.

The landlord denied accessing the property. They said that their offices are in Auckland and that they do not hold a key for the property in Wellington. They suggested that the sink may have slowly drained and become unclogged, or that [Tenant 2] (who was not present at the hearing today) may have cleaned it.

Unlawful entry is a serious allegation. Having considered the evidence I do not consider that the tenants have proved on the balance of probabilities that the landlord unlawfully entered. There were no sightings of the anybody entering the tenancy. There are other explanations for the sink having emptied. Name suppression and filing fee

Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim (although to a much lesser amount than claimed) I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The tenants are entitled an order for name suppression pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5181839 — net $627.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for loss of amenity	$500.00	Compensation for loss of amenity
Compensation for use of laundromat and time spent obtaining shower head and plug	$100.00	Compensation for use of laundromat and time spent obtaining shower head and plug
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$627.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$627.00