What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5189032 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 5189032?

Compensation: Quiet Enjoyment: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: s 45 Failure to mainta…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Credit From First Order Payment To T…: $727.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5189032?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5189032?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12884326-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5189032 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 5189032?

Compensation: Quiet Enjoyment: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: s 45 Failure to mainta…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Credit From First Order Payment To T…: $727.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5189032?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5189032?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12884326-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5189032 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5189032 — net $523.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Credit from first order payment to tenant	$727.00		Credit from first order payment to tenant
Compensation: Quiet Enjoyment		$250.00	Quiet Enjoyment
Exemplary damages: s 46 Locks		$500.00	s 46 Locks
Compensation: s 45 Failure to maintain		$500.00	s 45 Failure to maintain
Total award	$727.00	$1,250.00
Net award		$523.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$523.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

This was a rehearing granted after the first order dated 31 August 2025 and a tenant application for a rehearing was granted. That order awarded the tenant $727.00 as exemplary damages for landlord failures regarding HHS and securing the premises.

The previous order provided a good explanation of the evidential burden, so I do not replicate that here, but the parties are aware of it. I note, as is not uncommon in a rehearing, that disagreement between the parties over what may have been said or heard at the previous hearing differs from what is said or heard at this rehearing. This hearing is from afresh but cognisant of the history. I stressed to the parties the versions that count, with any supporting evidence as provided, are from the submissions, and what is in front of me, for this hearing.

The tenant had viewed the premises some nine months earlier before this tenancy. While interested at that time, the tenant was not offered it and another tenancy formed at the premises. Later, when the tenancy she did enter at that time was to end, the agent (common to both properties) raised this premises as an option as it was becoming available again. A second inspection was conducted. The premises condition was generally consistent with the first time viewed. The tenancy offer was accepted by the tenant. This was not a “sight unseen’ tenancy agreement.

The tenant sought compensation and exemplary damages. The specific landlord failures claimed at this hearing were confirmed as interference with quiet enjoyment, a demand for carpet cleaning, overpaid rent based on a tenancy agreement term, failure to provide a working lock, and a failure to maintain, causing leaks.

When pressed as to the compensation sum sought if successful, the tenant confirmed $10,000.00. Quiet enjoyment

The tenant complained of landlord actions pertaining to a demand regarding professional carpet cleaning before the end of the tenancy as well as a threat (never completed) of a $45.00 charge on the tenant by the landlord if scheduled inspections did not proceed. The later was explained by the landlord because of his frustration with previously repeated deferrals by the tenant of scheduled visits.

Both complaints of the tenant are accepted as more likely than not to have occurred.

I gave some consideration to a possible application of s 137 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) regarding prohibited transactions. That section states “no person shall enter into any transaction, or make any contract or arrangement, purporting to do, whether presently or at some future time or upon the happening of any event or contingency, anything that contravenes or will contravene any of the provisions of this Act; or enter into any transaction or make any contract or arrangement, whether orally or in writing, or do anything, for the purpose of or having the effect of, in any way, whether directly or indirectly, defeating, evading, or preventing the operation of any of the provisions of this Act”.

I have determined it more appropriate here to address these two landlord failures via s 38 RTA. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 38(2) RTA).

Having considered the submissions, I have provided a compensation figure of $250.00 for the unreasonable impact on the tenant from both landlord demands. I note the cost of carpet cleaning was later carried by the landlord.

I do not make any order regarding any delay in the return of the bond. As I explained at the hearing, there is no statutory requirement regarding timely return of the bond by a landlord. The balancing required at the end of the tenancy regarding possible claims versus prompt release of the bond is a real tension for a landlord. That said, the bulk of the bond was never in dispute and the landlord ideally would have provided for the partial release of the undisputed amount to the tenant. That would have alleviated much of the tension after the tenancy ended and the two relatively minor matters under dispute were processed. Locks

A landlord must provide and maintain locks to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. Neither the landlord nor the tenant may alter or remove any locks without the other party's consent. See section 46(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 46(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant claimed the upstairs sliding door could not be locked. The door faces the street and while on the first floor, the balcony and balustrades make unwanted access a real possibility.

The landlord acknowledged the lock did not work and that it was not repaired intentionally. While the first order considered a means of securing the door with wood was provided, I must base my determination on the submissions and evidence at this hearing. I do not find the landlord could confirm there was any wooden barrier provided as an alternative means of stopping eternal entry through the sliding door (given its location and expected use, any question of external key entry would be considered moot).

I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Given the security concerns for what was the daughters bedroom, the impact on the tenant and her daughter was not insignificant. The lack of any repair, nor any installation of an alternative method of securing the door – be it a bolt lock or barrier in the sliding track was intentional and I have determined exemplary damages of $500.00 should be awarded for this unlawful act. Maintenance

Under section 45, a landlord must, among other requirements, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair

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 complained that a window in a bedroom could not be closed. She also stated the carpet in the main living area was badly worn with exposed carpet tack strips near the main door and trap hazards that required covering mats. Photos support the claim regarding the carpet although the extent of wear was disputed.

A partially wall repair in two bedrooms was noted in entry inspection report as (for each bedroom) and the note remained eleven months later in that later routine report. It noted:

There was some acceptance and consideration by both parties as to the condition at entry. I do not conclude the landlord intent necessary to make an order for exemplary damages exists here.

However, it is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a known defect or as brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.

Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects, and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.

I do consider some compensation should be awarded given the state of the carpet and the continued state of the partially repaired wall. The wording in the inspection reports notes the condition as poor and a permanent repair of what is deemed a temporary fix never eventuated. The delay in final repair extends beyond any period that might reasonably be considered prudent to ensure the temporary repair is effective before finishing.

I have considered the lack of any apparent concern of the tenant regarding the walls. The later concern of the tenant regarding leaks and mould in these areas are unfounded. The repairs were completed before the tenancy and no further problems emerged during this tenancy. The remaining issue was aesthetic.

I make no orders pertaining to the claimed ongoing leak in the conservatory. The lack of notice of further leaks after a repair was conducted makes it unproven there was an ongoing leaking issue in the conservatory that should have been addressed by the landlord.

I have determined compensation of $500.00 is appropriate given the obvious failures that were apparent and known to the landlord but recognising a level of apparent tenant acceptance during the tenancy. That pets were part of the tenancy may have influenced some acceptance of the carpet condition (but any such acceptance may have been a cause of the later dispute regarding carpet cleaning demands). Overpaid rent

The weekly rent was $500.00 as stated in the tenancy agreement, and as paid by the tenant. The tenant later discovered a clause in the Additional Terms and Conditions ([29]) of the tenancy agreement that provided for a “rent rebate to $350 from the usual $450 until planned renovations were completed”.

On that basis she sought a refund of rent paid.

Section 78(g) RTA provides the Tribunal may make orders where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement between the parties has been induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake, or that any writing purporting to express the agreement between the parties does not accord with their true agreement, an order varying, or setting aside, the agreement or the writing (either wholly or in part).

Frankly, it appears an obvious mistake carried over from a previous agreement. The terms in [29] do not align with the specific sections on rent and if any such agreement for a rent rebate was reached the continued payment of $500.00 per week rent as the tenant did makes no sense. The Additional Clause 29 was a mistake and is of no effect.

This claim is dismissed. Filing fee

[The applicant/s] was reimbursed her filing fee in the first order and that is confirmed and accounted for in this order. Suppression

Continued suppression of the tenant details is ordered as the initial reasons for this have not changed.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5189032 — net $523.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Credit from first order payment to tenant	$727.00		Credit from first order payment to tenant
Compensation: Quiet Enjoyment		$250.00	Quiet Enjoyment
Exemplary damages: s 46 Locks		$500.00	s 46 Locks
Compensation: s 45 Failure to maintain		$500.00	s 45 Failure to maintain
Total award	$727.00	$1,250.00
Net award		$523.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$523.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

When pressed as to the compensation sum sought if successful, the tenant confirmed $10,000.00. Quiet enjoyment

Both complaints of the tenant are accepted as more likely than not to have occurred.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 46(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant claimed the upstairs sliding door could not be locked. The door faces the street and while on the first floor, the balcony and balustrades make unwanted access a real possibility.

I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.

Under section 45, a landlord must, among other requirements, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair

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.

A partially wall repair in two bedrooms was noted in entry inspection report as (for each bedroom) and the note remained eleven months later in that later routine report. It noted:

There was some acceptance and consideration by both parties as to the condition at entry. I do not conclude the landlord intent necessary to make an order for exemplary damages exists here.

On that basis she sought a refund of rent paid.

This claim is dismissed. Filing fee

[The applicant/s] was reimbursed her filing fee in the first order and that is confirmed and accounted for in this order. Suppression

Continued suppression of the tenant details is ordered as the initial reasons for this have not changed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5189032 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5189032 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions