What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5184351 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5184351?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5184351?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5184351?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11852231-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5184351 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5184351?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5184351?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5184351?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11852231-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5184351 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5184351 — net $250.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for delay in repairing door handles	$250.00	Compensation for delay in repairing door handles
Net award	$250.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$250.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $250.00 immediately. DescriptionTenant Compensation for delay in repairing door handles $250.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $250.00
The remainder of the tenant claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by videoconference on 15 May 2025.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for breaches by the landlord.
The landlord disputes the claims.
This tenancy commenced on 5 July 2024 and is ongoing. The parties advised that they were both involved in a previous tenancy and there has been a longstanding good landlord/tenant relationship. Unfortunately, difficulties have arisen leading to this application being filed. Burden of proof
In general the onus, or burden, of proving a particular claim rests with the party who is making that claim (in this case the Tenant). The standard of proof, or level of evidence, required is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the party proving the claim must establish with evidence that their claim is “more probable than not” or “more likely than not”.
Just because I do not find a claim proved does not mean that the party is wrong. It means that there was not sufficient evidence for me to find the claim proven to the required standard. The claims
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord has obligations including that they must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms as set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
Breaching any of these obligations 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims two breaches by the landlord which will be considered in turn.
Did the landlord fail to maintain the smoke alarm outside the bedrooms? (a) The tenant stated that in September 2024 the property manager attended the premises to do a house inspection and she advised the landlord that the smoke alarm was faulty. The tenant advised that the property manager removed the smoke alarm during the inspection. (b) The property denied removing the alarm but stated that she tested the alarm and it was in working order. The inspection report photographs provided for September 2024 records the alarm in place. (c) On 28 October 2024 the landlord issued a 14-day notice following a inspection in October which included the statement “The Hallway smoke alarm was not in place. This must be reinstated immediately.” (d) There is conflicting evidence from the parties regarding how the alarm was removed. The tenant stated she phoned the property manager on 30 October 2025 to advise that she believed the property manager removed the alarm. The property manager stated she believed it was removed by an occupant of the house due to smoking in the premises. (e) The landlord advised that on 13 December 2024 she conducted an inspection and discovered that the smoke alarm was still missing and arranged a replacement which was installed on 23 December 2024. Communication regarding the smoke alarm installation was provided in evidence. (f) Having considered the evidence I find that there is insufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities who removed the alarm and that the landlord failed to maintain the smoke alarm for the following reasons. There is no written record of any notification from the tenant to the landlord regarding a faulty or missing smoke alarm. The inspection report in September records the alarm is present. The landlord gave the tenant a 14- day notice on 28 October 2024 to replace the alarm and this was not remedied. The landlord then arranged a replacement.
Did the landlord fail to maintain the door handles? (a) The tenant stated that early in the tenancy in July or August 2024 she notified the landlord that the door handles were loose, in particular the bathroom toilet door handle but also bedroom handles. The handles would pull down but not spring back up. (b) The landlord advised that a quote to replace five door handles was obtained in September 2024. A copy of a quote dated 3 September 2024 was provided. This quote stated of the door handles “5 are sloppy and altho they are still functional they do need to be replaced”. (c) The property inspection report dated 10 September 2024 records “Recommended maintenance Door handles – new quote underway”. (d) The handles were replaced in February 2025. (e) The landlord advised that the delay in replacement was due to the owner deciding to replace all handles and that there were delays with obtaining the handles due to initially the wrong ones being ordered. (f) The effect of this delay on the tenant was that the handles further deteriorated, and the tenant advised that there was in incident where her child was locked in the toilet in December 2024. The tenant provided a record of communication with the landlord about this in February 2025. (g) There is also a copy of a record of [contractor] dated 14 December 2024 which states “Door handles Bedroom Master bedroom This issue has come through our service as urgent”.
Having considered the evidence I find that the tenant has proved on the balance of probabilities that the landlord breached their obligations and did not maintain the door handles in a reasonable time frame due to the delay of over five months from first notification of the maintenance issue until they were repaired.

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages and/or compensation?

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages. In this case I find that the landlord did not commit an unlawful act intentionally as there is evidence of the property manager engaging a contractor in September 2024 and communication with the tenant throughout, the initial report suggested that the handles were functional although I find that the deterioration continued while the contractor was sourcing the replacement handles.
The Tribunal can order a landlord to pay such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any provision of the Residential Tenancies Act (section 77(2)(n)).
Rather than out of pocket expenses the compensation is in the nature of general damages for the inconvenience and loss of amenity of living in a premises where there were on going issues with the door handles for five months. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to make such award pursuant to section 77(2)(n) of the Act: Eayrs v Hindmarsh, DC Wellington, TT223/93, 12 November 1993. Awards of compensation are generally modest. I find that the delay in repairing the door handles affected the tenant’s use of and enjoyment of the premises and award an amount of $50 per month for the 5-month delay being $250.00 in compensation.

Did the landlord fail to provide a copy of the insurance policy when requested?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not provided a copy of the insurance policy for the premises.
A tenant can request the landlord to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises. The landlord must provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time. The landlord must notify the tenant of any changes to the information provided, or if the premises are no longer insured. See s 45(2B) and (2C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant requested a copy of the insurance policy by email on 19 December 2024. The landlord provided a copy of an email to the tenant dated 20 December 2024 which included the statement “policy wording attached for the new policy”. The email records in the attachments “state policy-wording.pdf”.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has proved on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time frame. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Curtains
The tenant also sought reimbursement of the cost of hanging curtains in the sum of $60.00 but this claim relates to a different tenancy address so cannot be considered under this application. Filing fee/suppression
As the tenant has not been wholly successful with the claim I have not reimbursed the filing fee. See section 102(4) RTA.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Having considered the factors in this case including the prior good relationship between the parties, the fact that this is an ongoing tenancy, the nature of the claims and the relatively minor sum ordered, I find that the interests of the parties outweighs the public interest in their names being published and order suppression of all identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5184351 — net $250.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for delay in repairing door handles	$250.00	Compensation for delay in repairing door handles
Net award	$250.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$250.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $250.00 immediately. DescriptionTenant Compensation for delay in repairing door handles $250.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $250.00
The remainder of the tenant claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by videoconference on 15 May 2025.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for breaches by the landlord.
The landlord disputes the claims.
This tenancy commenced on 5 July 2024 and is ongoing. The parties advised that they were both involved in a previous tenancy and there has been a longstanding good landlord/tenant relationship. Unfortunately, difficulties have arisen leading to this application being filed. Burden of proof
In general the onus, or burden, of proving a particular claim rests with the party who is making that claim (in this case the Tenant). The standard of proof, or level of evidence, required is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the party proving the claim must establish with evidence that their claim is “more probable than not” or “more likely than not”.
Just because I do not find a claim proved does not mean that the party is wrong. It means that there was not sufficient evidence for me to find the claim proven to the required standard. The claims
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord has obligations including that they must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms as set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
Breaching any of these obligations 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims two breaches by the landlord which will be considered in turn.
Did the landlord fail to maintain the smoke alarm outside the bedrooms? (a) The tenant stated that in September 2024 the property manager attended the premises to do a house inspection and she advised the landlord that the smoke alarm was faulty. The tenant advised that the property manager removed the smoke alarm during the inspection. (b) The property denied removing the alarm but stated that she tested the alarm and it was in working order. The inspection report photographs provided for September 2024 records the alarm in place. (c) On 28 October 2024 the landlord issued a 14-day notice following a inspection in October which included the statement “The Hallway smoke alarm was not in place. This must be reinstated immediately.” (d) There is conflicting evidence from the parties regarding how the alarm was removed. The tenant stated she phoned the property manager on 30 October 2025 to advise that she believed the property manager removed the alarm. The property manager stated she believed it was removed by an occupant of the house due to smoking in the premises. (e) The landlord advised that on 13 December 2024 she conducted an inspection and discovered that the smoke alarm was still missing and arranged a replacement which was installed on 23 December 2024. Communication regarding the smoke alarm installation was provided in evidence. (f) Having considered the evidence I find that there is insufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities who removed the alarm and that the landlord failed to maintain the smoke alarm for the following reasons. There is no written record of any notification from the tenant to the landlord regarding a faulty or missing smoke alarm. The inspection report in September records the alarm is present. The landlord gave the tenant a 14- day notice on 28 October 2024 to replace the alarm and this was not remedied. The landlord then arranged a replacement.
Did the landlord fail to maintain the door handles? (a) The tenant stated that early in the tenancy in July or August 2024 she notified the landlord that the door handles were loose, in particular the bathroom toilet door handle but also bedroom handles. The handles would pull down but not spring back up. (b) The landlord advised that a quote to replace five door handles was obtained in September 2024. A copy of a quote dated 3 September 2024 was provided. This quote stated of the door handles “5 are sloppy and altho they are still functional they do need to be replaced”. (c) The property inspection report dated 10 September 2024 records “Recommended maintenance Door handles – new quote underway”. (d) The handles were replaced in February 2025. (e) The landlord advised that the delay in replacement was due to the owner deciding to replace all handles and that there were delays with obtaining the handles due to initially the wrong ones being ordered. (f) The effect of this delay on the tenant was that the handles further deteriorated, and the tenant advised that there was in incident where her child was locked in the toilet in December 2024. The tenant provided a record of communication with the landlord about this in February 2025. (g) There is also a copy of a record of [contractor] dated 14 December 2024 which states “Door handles Bedroom Master bedroom This issue has come through our service as urgent”.
Having considered the evidence I find that the tenant has proved on the balance of probabilities that the landlord breached their obligations and did not maintain the door handles in a reasonable time frame due to the delay of over five months from first notification of the maintenance issue until they were repaired.

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages and/or compensation?

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages. In this case I find that the landlord did not commit an unlawful act intentionally as there is evidence of the property manager engaging a contractor in September 2024 and communication with the tenant throughout, the initial report suggested that the handles were functional although I find that the deterioration continued while the contractor was sourcing the replacement handles.
The Tribunal can order a landlord to pay such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any provision of the Residential Tenancies Act (section 77(2)(n)).
Rather than out of pocket expenses the compensation is in the nature of general damages for the inconvenience and loss of amenity of living in a premises where there were on going issues with the door handles for five months. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to make such award pursuant to section 77(2)(n) of the Act: Eayrs v Hindmarsh, DC Wellington, TT223/93, 12 November 1993. Awards of compensation are generally modest. I find that the delay in repairing the door handles affected the tenant’s use of and enjoyment of the premises and award an amount of $50 per month for the 5-month delay being $250.00 in compensation.

Did the landlord fail to provide a copy of the insurance policy when requested?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not provided a copy of the insurance policy for the premises.
A tenant can request the landlord to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises. The landlord must provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time. The landlord must notify the tenant of any changes to the information provided, or if the premises are no longer insured. See s 45(2B) and (2C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant requested a copy of the insurance policy by email on 19 December 2024. The landlord provided a copy of an email to the tenant dated 20 December 2024 which included the statement “policy wording attached for the new policy”. The email records in the attachments “state policy-wording.pdf”.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has proved on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time frame. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Curtains
The tenant also sought reimbursement of the cost of hanging curtains in the sum of $60.00 but this claim relates to a different tenancy address so cannot be considered under this application. Filing fee/suppression
As the tenant has not been wholly successful with the claim I have not reimbursed the filing fee. See section 102(4) RTA.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Having considered the factors in this case including the prior good relationship between the parties, the fact that this is an ongoing tenancy, the nature of the claims and the relatively minor sum ordered, I find that the interests of the parties outweighs the public interest in their names being published and order suppression of all identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5184351 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5184351 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages and/or compensation?

Did the landlord fail to provide a copy of the insurance policy when requested?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages and/or compensation?

Did the landlord fail to provide a copy of the insurance policy when requested?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions