What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5205371 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 5205371?

Compensation: Alternative accommodat…: $870.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Moving Costs: $471.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Storage Costs: $217.50 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5205371?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5205371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12356542-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5205371 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 5205371?

Compensation: Alternative accommodat…: $870.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Moving Costs: $471.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Storage Costs: $217.50 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5205371?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5205371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12356542-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3F Mountain Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5205371 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5205371 — net $3,585.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Alternative accommodation	$870.00	Alternative accommodation
Compensation: Storage costs	$217.50	Storage costs
Compensation: Moving costs	$471.00	Moving costs
Exemplary damages: Failing to maintain	$2,000.00	Failing to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,585.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,585.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names of both parties. The address itself is not suppressed.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $3,585.50 immediately, as per below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 1 July 2025. The tenant attended via teleconference and the landlord attended in person. Tenant’s claims
The tenancy was for almost 15 years from 21 July 2010 until 28 April 2025.
After the tenancy has ended, the tenant applied for compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises, breach of quiet enjoyment and emotional harm.
The tenant raised issues mostly to do with the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (“HIR”) – landlord’s failure to provide a heater (regulation 6), lack of adequate storage for food (regulation 7(3)), lack of means for baking (regulation 7(2)(b)), house not being free from dampness (regulation 15), windows not being weatherproof (regulation 17(1)), walls and ceiling not maintained adequately (regulation 17(2)), flooring not kept in a good state of repair (regulation 17(3)) and appurtenances and appliances not being kept in a good state of repair (regulation 18(1)).
The tenant claimed that the landlord’s delay in having the ceiling tested for asbestos in addition to the existing maintenance issues for the premises breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. The tenant claimed that waiting for action on her verbal maintenance requests caused the tenant significant stress as well as the delay in testing and the results being provided. The tenant claimed emotional harm compensation for this.
Under section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
As the tenant’s issue was with the delay with the maintenance of the premises, I do not find that the tenant’s claim falls under section 38 RTA. That section is to do with what the landlord’s positive interference with the tenant’s use of the premises and not simply causing the tenant to worry or be distressed due to the pattern of inaction. Therefore, I dismiss the breach of quiet enjoyment and emotional harm claims and focus on dealing with the maintenance claims.
The tenant referred to a case of TT 433927 which dealt with an issue with a cancellation of a tenancy agreement. That is not applicable at all to this case and therefore is not referred to in my decision. Failure to maintain the premises
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
This includes the obligation to comply with the HIR.
Breaching 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 RTA.
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) RTA.
However, section 49 RTA imposes a duty on the tenant to take steps to inform the landlord if the landlord is in breach of the landlord’s duties. Section 49 states, “where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
This means that there is a duty on the tenant to escalate the matter further in writing if the tenant’s verbal requests are not being responded to.
The tenant provided photos of the premises to support the claims that the premises had not been maintained to a reasonable state of repair. From the photos, I find that the premises was not reasonably maintained.
Unfortunately for the tenant, the tenant had only served a written 14-day notice to remedy on 28 February 2025 towards the very end of the tenancy.
Prior to the 14-day notice, the tenant did take action to bring issues to the landlord’s attention.
On 2 July 2024, the tenant raised concerns with the agent that the premises was extremely wet, and the carpet was wet during a property inspection.
On 1 October 2024, another property inspection took place where the tenant alerted the agent that the floorboards were breaking off from the wall due to water ingress.
On 15 January 2025, the tenant rang the agent raising concerns regarding the water ingress. The tenant emailed the agent a photo on the same day proving the water ingress. The tenant received no response to the email.
On 28 January 2025, another property inspection took place when the tenant pointed out to the agent that the damage from the water ingress was getting worse.
On 8 February 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord to follow up on her request to get an asbestos test done on the popcorn ceiling. The tenant received no response to the email.
On 12 February 2025, the tenant emailed the agent again to follow up with the maintenance requests including water ingress and asbestos testing. The tenant received no response to the email.
On 18 February 2025, the tenant again emailed the agent to follow up on the inspection that took place on 28 January 2025. Serious maintenance concerns including water ingress, asbestos testing, and popcorn ceiling flaking were raised again. The tenant received no response to the email.
On 24 February 2025, the tenant again emailed the agent to follow up on the asbestos testing and popcorn ceiling flaking down.
Finally, the tenant served the landlord with a 14-day notice to remedy on 28 February 2025.
The landlord did act with reasonable swiftness once the 14-day notice was served. The ceiling was tested for asbestos on 5 March 2025 and when the results came back on 26 March 2025, the result was promptly forwarded onto the tenant. The results came back negative.
The tenant was doubtful as to the results and requested for another asbestos testing to be done to the agent. That request from 7 April 2025 was denied but the tenant was given permission to conduct her own test.
On 9 April 2025, the tenant engaged in asbestos testing herself. The result came back negative also.
Regarding the delay in having the popcorn ceiling tested for asbestos, the landlord explained that the unit next door had been tested for asbestos previously and no asbestos was found.
Maintenance work required the tenant to vacate the premises. The tenant vacated the premises and while away from the premises, the tenant notified the landlord that she would not be coming back.
The landlord was good enough to backdate the final date of the tenancy to when she had left the premises.
In relation to the claims raised by the tenant, most of the HIR concerns were well founded. The landlord accepted not having provided a heater and said that the landlord was unaware of the obligation to do so. The tenant was provided with a microwave sometime after the tenant had moved in. However, the microwave was never replaced after it died. The tenant bought a bench top oven herself and used that instead. The landlord said that the tenant had never raised the issue with the landlord.
The tenant proved that the premises was not free from dampness by the photos of the walls, skirtings and carpets. The landlord said that the roof was under the Body Corporate’s jurisdiction, and it was being repaired by the Body Corporate.
The windows, walls, ceilings and the flooring issues were all raised by the tenant but were not actioned until the 14-day notice was served.
The drapes were mouldy and were discarded but they were not replaced by the landlord despite being listed in the chattels list.
The only HIR claim that was unfounded was the landlord not providing adequate storage for food. The tenant claimed that the storage area under the sink was inadequate for storage of food due to the dampness under the sink. Regulation 7(3) HIR requires for adequate storage of food to be “placed, fitted and ventilated as to protect the food from flies, dust and other contamination, and from the direct rays of the sun.” I find that the storage area was adequately provided but the issue was the storage area not being maintained to a reasonable standard.
Although the landlord has responded to the 14-day notice, I find that the landlord should have known that the premises was not reasonably maintained during the regular inspections.
The photos provided by the tenant along with the emails make it clear that the premises needed maintenance. I find that the landlord was on notice adequately even before the 14-day notice was formally served on the landlord. I find that the premises was not maintained to a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
I find that the knowledge level of the landlord would mean that the lack of maintenance was intentional. The lack of maintenance resulted in the tenant living in a property that suffered from dampness and maintenance issues. There is public interest in ensuring that the tenants live in a reasonably maintained premises and there is public interest in ensuring that the landlords maintain their premises in a reasonable state of repair.
However, I recognise that the tenant has only given the landlord a written 14- day notice to the landlord towards the end of the 15-year tenancy. Had she given a formal 14-day notice earlier, I find that the landlord would have actioned maintenance sooner.
Therefore, I order the landlord to pay the tenant $2,000.00 in exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises.
Further to this, due to the maintenance issues that needed to be attended to, the tenant had to live elsewhere and incur costs for the move. Had the maintenance issues been attended to throughout the tenancy, there would not have been a need to incur these costs.
Initially the work was going to be 2 to 3 days, but then it was changed to over a week. The tenant decided to not return after moving out to accommodate for the maintenance work that required to be done.
I order the landlord to compensate the tenant $870.00 for alternative accommodation for 3 weeks at the end of the tenancy, $217.50 for storage costs and $471.00 for moving costs. The amounts claimed by the tenant were actual and reasonable.
I have taken into account the rent-free period given by the landlord into this award. The amount ordered in exemplary damages was kept at the level ordered to reflect the landlord’s efforts to accommodate for the tenant.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5205371 — net $3,585.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Alternative accommodation	$870.00	Alternative accommodation
Compensation: Storage costs	$217.50	Storage costs
Compensation: Moving costs	$471.00	Moving costs
Exemplary damages: Failing to maintain	$2,000.00	Failing to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,585.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,585.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names of both parties. The address itself is not suppressed.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $3,585.50 immediately, as per below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 1 July 2025. The tenant attended via teleconference and the landlord attended in person. Tenant’s claims
The tenancy was for almost 15 years from 21 July 2010 until 28 April 2025.
After the tenancy has ended, the tenant applied for compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises, breach of quiet enjoyment and emotional harm.
The tenant raised issues mostly to do with the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (“HIR”) – landlord’s failure to provide a heater (regulation 6), lack of adequate storage for food (regulation 7(3)), lack of means for baking (regulation 7(2)(b)), house not being free from dampness (regulation 15), windows not being weatherproof (regulation 17(1)), walls and ceiling not maintained adequately (regulation 17(2)), flooring not kept in a good state of repair (regulation 17(3)) and appurtenances and appliances not being kept in a good state of repair (regulation 18(1)).
The tenant claimed that the landlord’s delay in having the ceiling tested for asbestos in addition to the existing maintenance issues for the premises breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. The tenant claimed that waiting for action on her verbal maintenance requests caused the tenant significant stress as well as the delay in testing and the results being provided. The tenant claimed emotional harm compensation for this.
Under section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
As the tenant’s issue was with the delay with the maintenance of the premises, I do not find that the tenant’s claim falls under section 38 RTA. That section is to do with what the landlord’s positive interference with the tenant’s use of the premises and not simply causing the tenant to worry or be distressed due to the pattern of inaction. Therefore, I dismiss the breach of quiet enjoyment and emotional harm claims and focus on dealing with the maintenance claims.
The tenant referred to a case of TT 433927 which dealt with an issue with a cancellation of a tenancy agreement. That is not applicable at all to this case and therefore is not referred to in my decision. Failure to maintain the premises
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
This includes the obligation to comply with the HIR.
Breaching 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 RTA.
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) RTA.
However, section 49 RTA imposes a duty on the tenant to take steps to inform the landlord if the landlord is in breach of the landlord’s duties. Section 49 states, “where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
This means that there is a duty on the tenant to escalate the matter further in writing if the tenant’s verbal requests are not being responded to.
The tenant provided photos of the premises to support the claims that the premises had not been maintained to a reasonable state of repair. From the photos, I find that the premises was not reasonably maintained.
Unfortunately for the tenant, the tenant had only served a written 14-day notice to remedy on 28 February 2025 towards the very end of the tenancy.
Prior to the 14-day notice, the tenant did take action to bring issues to the landlord’s attention.
On 2 July 2024, the tenant raised concerns with the agent that the premises was extremely wet, and the carpet was wet during a property inspection.
On 1 October 2024, another property inspection took place where the tenant alerted the agent that the floorboards were breaking off from the wall due to water ingress.
On 15 January 2025, the tenant rang the agent raising concerns regarding the water ingress. The tenant emailed the agent a photo on the same day proving the water ingress. The tenant received no response to the email.
On 28 January 2025, another property inspection took place when the tenant pointed out to the agent that the damage from the water ingress was getting worse.
On 8 February 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord to follow up on her request to get an asbestos test done on the popcorn ceiling. The tenant received no response to the email.
On 12 February 2025, the tenant emailed the agent again to follow up with the maintenance requests including water ingress and asbestos testing. The tenant received no response to the email.
On 18 February 2025, the tenant again emailed the agent to follow up on the inspection that took place on 28 January 2025. Serious maintenance concerns including water ingress, asbestos testing, and popcorn ceiling flaking were raised again. The tenant received no response to the email.
On 24 February 2025, the tenant again emailed the agent to follow up on the asbestos testing and popcorn ceiling flaking down.
Finally, the tenant served the landlord with a 14-day notice to remedy on 28 February 2025.
The landlord did act with reasonable swiftness once the 14-day notice was served. The ceiling was tested for asbestos on 5 March 2025 and when the results came back on 26 March 2025, the result was promptly forwarded onto the tenant. The results came back negative.
The tenant was doubtful as to the results and requested for another asbestos testing to be done to the agent. That request from 7 April 2025 was denied but the tenant was given permission to conduct her own test.
On 9 April 2025, the tenant engaged in asbestos testing herself. The result came back negative also.
Regarding the delay in having the popcorn ceiling tested for asbestos, the landlord explained that the unit next door had been tested for asbestos previously and no asbestos was found.
Maintenance work required the tenant to vacate the premises. The tenant vacated the premises and while away from the premises, the tenant notified the landlord that she would not be coming back.
The landlord was good enough to backdate the final date of the tenancy to when she had left the premises.
In relation to the claims raised by the tenant, most of the HIR concerns were well founded. The landlord accepted not having provided a heater and said that the landlord was unaware of the obligation to do so. The tenant was provided with a microwave sometime after the tenant had moved in. However, the microwave was never replaced after it died. The tenant bought a bench top oven herself and used that instead. The landlord said that the tenant had never raised the issue with the landlord.
The tenant proved that the premises was not free from dampness by the photos of the walls, skirtings and carpets. The landlord said that the roof was under the Body Corporate’s jurisdiction, and it was being repaired by the Body Corporate.
The windows, walls, ceilings and the flooring issues were all raised by the tenant but were not actioned until the 14-day notice was served.
The drapes were mouldy and were discarded but they were not replaced by the landlord despite being listed in the chattels list.
The only HIR claim that was unfounded was the landlord not providing adequate storage for food. The tenant claimed that the storage area under the sink was inadequate for storage of food due to the dampness under the sink. Regulation 7(3) HIR requires for adequate storage of food to be “placed, fitted and ventilated as to protect the food from flies, dust and other contamination, and from the direct rays of the sun.” I find that the storage area was adequately provided but the issue was the storage area not being maintained to a reasonable standard.
Although the landlord has responded to the 14-day notice, I find that the landlord should have known that the premises was not reasonably maintained during the regular inspections.
The photos provided by the tenant along with the emails make it clear that the premises needed maintenance. I find that the landlord was on notice adequately even before the 14-day notice was formally served on the landlord. I find that the premises was not maintained to a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
I find that the knowledge level of the landlord would mean that the lack of maintenance was intentional. The lack of maintenance resulted in the tenant living in a property that suffered from dampness and maintenance issues. There is public interest in ensuring that the tenants live in a reasonably maintained premises and there is public interest in ensuring that the landlords maintain their premises in a reasonable state of repair.
However, I recognise that the tenant has only given the landlord a written 14- day notice to the landlord towards the end of the 15-year tenancy. Had she given a formal 14-day notice earlier, I find that the landlord would have actioned maintenance sooner.
Therefore, I order the landlord to pay the tenant $2,000.00 in exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises.
Further to this, due to the maintenance issues that needed to be attended to, the tenant had to live elsewhere and incur costs for the move. Had the maintenance issues been attended to throughout the tenancy, there would not have been a need to incur these costs.
Initially the work was going to be 2 to 3 days, but then it was changed to over a week. The tenant decided to not return after moving out to accommodate for the maintenance work that required to be done.
I order the landlord to compensate the tenant $870.00 for alternative accommodation for 3 weeks at the end of the tenancy, $217.50 for storage costs and $471.00 for moving costs. The amounts claimed by the tenant were actual and reasonable.
I have taken into account the rent-free period given by the landlord into this award. The amount ordered in exemplary damages was kept at the level ordered to reflect the landlord’s efforts to accommodate for the tenant.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5205371 — Exemplary damages at 3F Mountain Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5205371 — Exemplary damages at 3F Mountain Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1072

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