What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5184051 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 5184051?

Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5184051?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5184051?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12106852-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5184051 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 5184051?

Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5184051?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5184051?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12106852-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

17 Stirling Drive, Greymouth, Greymouth 7805 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5184051 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5184051 — net $1,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for loss of enjoyment of tenancy	$1,000.00	Compensation for loss of enjoyment of tenancy
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,027.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $1027.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held today by phone. The tenant was represented by her partner. Ms Rea represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for compensation and/or exemplary damages for what she says was the landlord’s failure to maintain and repair the premises.
I first heard the application on 24 March 2025. I made a work order for the landlord to carry out all the work identified in a scope of works produced in evidence at that hearing.
I adjourned the hearing for the work to be completed. That required an extension of the timeframe I set.
The parties confirmed today that the work has been completed. The work was such that the tenant and her family had to relocate to temporary accommodation. Included among the work was the removal of asbestos from flooring.
The tenant and her family moved back to the premises on 19 June 2025.
The tenant seeks compensation for the inconvenience and emotional stress the family had suffered due to the length of time the repair work took. Part of the claim is for a period of about 8 weeks the laundry could not be used due to the asbestos that was identified. For that time, the tenant had to use a laundromat.
Ms Rea accepted that there had been a delay in the work being done. She said the premises were inspected on 13 January 2025 and that was when the issues were identified. She said the landlord had endeavoured to have the work done as quickly as possible, but the location, the availability of tradespeople, the high workload of the landlord’s maintenance team, and the scope of the repairs combined to cause the delay.
The tenant said that it took a Tribunal application to be made before the work was given any urgency. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. The tenant’s compensation claim is for the loss of use and therefore enjoyment of the tenancy and for the emotional effects of that loss.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation:
The nature of the breach;
The duration of the breach; and 1 [2020] NZDC 17667
The effect of the breach on the party.
Compensation is not punitive; it recognises loss. Here, there was an acknowledged delay in the repair work being completed due to the factors mentioned above.
I accept that the tenant (and her family) suffered a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy, and the emotional effects of that, due to the length of time it took to repair the premises and make them safe. That included a period of relocation which itself is a stressful event.
For the tenant’s loss of enjoyment of the tenancy for the extended period of time it took to complete the repairs, and the loss of use of the laundry due to the discovery of asbestos in the flooring, I award the tenant compensation of $1,000.00. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are like a fine. They are designed to punish and to deter.
For exemplary damages to be awarded the party seeking them must prove that the other party has intentionally tuned their mind to a defined unlawful act and then set about to commit that unlawful act.
The tenant has not established that the landlord intentionally committed any unlawful act. The landlord was slow in its response to the quite significant repair work that was required, but there were reasons for that. It seems that the work was not given priority until the tenant made an application to the Tribunal.
While that delay and the loss of enjoyment it caused for the tenant, can be recognised by an award of compensation, the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages in addition, the necessary element of intent not having been proved. Result
The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The landlord will pay the tenant compensation of $1,000.00 for her (and her family’s) loss of use of part of the premises (the laundry) and the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the time it took to complete repairs. Other matters raised
The tenant’s partner raised other complaints about the landlord’s management of the tenancy, noting that there had been no inspection since the repairs were completed, nor confirmation of who the customer services officer/tenancy manager was.
These are not matters that the Tribunal can address, nor can it direct the landlord to agree to the installation of an HRV system.
That said, it would seem sensible for there to be a meeting between the parties to try and resolve these remaining areas of disagreement as well as confirmation by the landlord in writing about who is responsible for managing the tenancy now. Name suppression
The tenant sought, and is entitled to, name suppression as the application is successful.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5184051 — net $1,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for loss of enjoyment of tenancy	$1,000.00	Compensation for loss of enjoyment of tenancy
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,027.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $1027.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held today by phone. The tenant was represented by her partner. Ms Rea represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for compensation and/or exemplary damages for what she says was the landlord’s failure to maintain and repair the premises.
I first heard the application on 24 March 2025. I made a work order for the landlord to carry out all the work identified in a scope of works produced in evidence at that hearing.
I adjourned the hearing for the work to be completed. That required an extension of the timeframe I set.
The parties confirmed today that the work has been completed. The work was such that the tenant and her family had to relocate to temporary accommodation. Included among the work was the removal of asbestos from flooring.
The tenant and her family moved back to the premises on 19 June 2025.
The tenant seeks compensation for the inconvenience and emotional stress the family had suffered due to the length of time the repair work took. Part of the claim is for a period of about 8 weeks the laundry could not be used due to the asbestos that was identified. For that time, the tenant had to use a laundromat.
Ms Rea accepted that there had been a delay in the work being done. She said the premises were inspected on 13 January 2025 and that was when the issues were identified. She said the landlord had endeavoured to have the work done as quickly as possible, but the location, the availability of tradespeople, the high workload of the landlord’s maintenance team, and the scope of the repairs combined to cause the delay.
The tenant said that it took a Tribunal application to be made before the work was given any urgency. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. The tenant’s compensation claim is for the loss of use and therefore enjoyment of the tenancy and for the emotional effects of that loss.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation:
The nature of the breach;
The duration of the breach; and 1 [2020] NZDC 17667
The effect of the breach on the party.
Compensation is not punitive; it recognises loss. Here, there was an acknowledged delay in the repair work being completed due to the factors mentioned above.
I accept that the tenant (and her family) suffered a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy, and the emotional effects of that, due to the length of time it took to repair the premises and make them safe. That included a period of relocation which itself is a stressful event.
For the tenant’s loss of enjoyment of the tenancy for the extended period of time it took to complete the repairs, and the loss of use of the laundry due to the discovery of asbestos in the flooring, I award the tenant compensation of $1,000.00. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are like a fine. They are designed to punish and to deter.
For exemplary damages to be awarded the party seeking them must prove that the other party has intentionally tuned their mind to a defined unlawful act and then set about to commit that unlawful act.
The tenant has not established that the landlord intentionally committed any unlawful act. The landlord was slow in its response to the quite significant repair work that was required, but there were reasons for that. It seems that the work was not given priority until the tenant made an application to the Tribunal.
While that delay and the loss of enjoyment it caused for the tenant, can be recognised by an award of compensation, the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages in addition, the necessary element of intent not having been proved. Result
The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The landlord will pay the tenant compensation of $1,000.00 for her (and her family’s) loss of use of part of the premises (the laundry) and the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the time it took to complete repairs. Other matters raised
The tenant’s partner raised other complaints about the landlord’s management of the tenancy, noting that there had been no inspection since the repairs were completed, nor confirmation of who the customer services officer/tenancy manager was.
These are not matters that the Tribunal can address, nor can it direct the landlord to agree to the installation of an HRV system.
That said, it would seem sensible for there to be a meeting between the parties to try and resolve these remaining areas of disagreement as well as confirmation by the landlord in writing about who is responsible for managing the tenancy now. Name suppression
The tenant sought, and is entitled to, name suppression as the application is successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5184051 — Tenancy dispute at 17 Stirling Drive, Greymouth, Greymouth 7805

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5184051 — Tenancy dispute at 17 Stirling Drive, Greymouth, Greymouth 7805

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions