What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5211231?

The tribunal order states: Auckland Property Management Limited must pay Fiona Seymour Tate

How much money was awarded in case 5211231?

Compensation: Loss of amenity, stres…: $1,480.64 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of amenity, stres…: $822.86 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5211231?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5211231?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12034334-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5211231?

The tribunal order states: Auckland Property Management Limited must pay Fiona Seymour Tate

How much money was awarded in case 5211231?

Compensation: Loss of amenity, stres…: $1,480.64 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of amenity, stres…: $822.86 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5211231?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5211231?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12034334-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

448 Beach Road, Murrays Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5211231 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5211231 — net $2,330.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience-Bathroom	$1,480.64	Loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience-Bathroom
Compensation: Loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience-Kitchen floor and hallway ceiling	$822.86	Loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience-Kitchen floor and hallway ceiling
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,330.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,330.50

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5211231 — net $2,330.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience-Bathroom	$1,480.64	Loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience-Bathroom
Compensation: Loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience-Kitchen floor and hallway ceiling	$822.86	Loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience-Kitchen floor and hallway ceiling
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,330.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,330.50

Order

Auckland Property Management Limited must pay Fiona Seymour Tate $2,330.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 26 June 2025.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee as well as compensation, general damages and/or exemplary damages for: a. Failure to maintain the premise in a reasonable state of repair (s45(1)(b) of the RTA); b. Failure to comply with the healthy homes standards (s45(1)(bb) of the RTA); c. Breach of the tenant’s privacy and quiet enjoyment of the property (s 38 of the RTA); d. Moving related costs; and e. Cost of time related to preparation for and attending this hearing. Background
The tenancy commenced on 15 April 2023 and ended on 2 April 2025. The final inspection was on 4 April 2025.
The tenant rented a 152m2 five-bedroom, one-bathroom, one ensuite and separate toilet house for 865.00 per week.
The tenancy agreement was initially fixed term for a period of 12 months. It was renewed for a further fixed term, commencing 13 April 2024 and ending on 19 April 2025.
The tenant moved out earlier due to all the repair and maintenance issues she had encountered. Her new premise has a higher rental. By agreement, the tenant paid rent to 4 April 2025, so was released a few weeks earlier from the fixed term period.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. TENANT’S CLAIMS Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the RTA obligations to the tenant?
Fiona Seymour Tate claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Breaching either of these s45(1) 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. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain
The tenant gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to her attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. A. Son’s bathroom floor
The tenant confirmed, eight weeks after the flood in the storage room, the tenant’s son texted her about a soggy floor in his bathroom, on 2 November 2024.
The tenant was on Waiheke Island at that time for Halloween and text the property manager and the owner with photographs of the water damage on the floorboards on her return to Auckland around 4 November 2024.
On 4 November 2024, the tenant had builders, plumbers, industrial dehumidifier, and the floor was assessed as being unsafe and in need of repair. The hot water cylinder in the storage room had continued to leak and caused the water damage. The dehumidifiers ran for three to four days and then were taken away.
By 5 November 2024, the flooding was extending into the edge of bedroom carpet and the tenant notified the landlord of this.
For a period of weeks, nothing happened and then the property manager met an insurance assessor at the property. The vanity suffered water damage and needed replacing, holes in the wet walls and water damaged floors. These renovations were going to be significant.
On 11 December 2024, the owner entered the house with a builder through an entrance under the carport and the tenant did not know he was there. The tenant’s son let them in to assess the damage. On 13 December 2024, the builder and the owner came again and put down a piece of plywood on the damaged floor to allow the floor to safely be walked over as it was getting softer. The owner and builder did not contact the tenant about the visits. All communications were with her son via text.
The tenant kept following up with the property manager and was told that there was hold ups with the insurance claim, that were in turn holding up the repair.
In January 2025, the tenant was offered 4 weeks rent reduction at $80.00 per week for the loss of amenity of this bathroom. This rent deduction was actioned.
On 24 January 2025, the tenant received an email from the property manager saying that no further rent reduction would be applied and that they would offer a 50% rent reduction for the duration of the repairs, estimated to be 45 days but there was no mention of when that work would commence as the insurance claim had not yet been accepted by AMI.
On 31 January 2025 the tenant sent a letter to the property manager that asks for an update and lists all the other repair ad maintenance issues with the property.
On 8 February 2025, the tenant sent an email to the property manager saying the floor was becoming mouldy, smelt bad and was getting damper. The tenant has provided photographs that show significant water damage to the bathroom walls and flooring and that the plywood placed over the unsafe area has started to grow black mould as the dampness had come through the plywood cover. The tenant got no response to this email.
The landlord says the black mould picture taken on 9 March 2025 shows the bathmat has led to the black mould growing in this area and could have been avoided if it had been hung up between each use to allow it to ventilate.
By the time the tenant moved out on 2 April 2025, no more work had been done on the bathroom.
The landlord says the delay was because of the insurance process being slow and the landlord not being able to carry out the repairs any faster than they were.
While there has been no technical breach of the landlord’s obligations to repair the bathroom floor in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances, I am satisfied the tenant, and her son suffered a significant loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience as a result of this water damage to the bathroom and the insurance related delays. Therefore, I award the tenant a rent rebate of $80.00 per week for that loss of amenity, stress, and inconvenience from 4 November 2024 to 4 April 2025, being 21 weeks and 4 days at a total amount of $1,810.64. I deduct the $320.00 already paid to the tenant, leaving an award of $1,480.64 to be paid to the tenant.
I do not find that the landlord intentionally breached its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations in relation to the bathroom floor issue and therefore find that an award of exemplary damages is not warranted. B. Kitchen floor and hallway ceiling
In April 2024, the tenant says she kept seeing marks in front of the dishwasher. The owner came over to investigate and told the tenant not to worry.
On 11 June 2024, the tenant reported to the owner that there was no hot water in the bathroom and kitchen. The owner organised a plumber who came on 12 June 2024. The plumber finds wet walls and floors in the kitchen that has come from the hot water cylinder in the kitchen.
From 13 to 14 June 2024, industrial dehumidifiers are brought in the dry out the kitchen. At the same time, around 13 June 2024, the tenant sees water coming through the light fittings in the hallway and sends a photograph of this to the owner.
On 14 June 2024, the owner says he will send a plumber over as soon as possible. Just after the text was sent, a big part of the ceiling collapsed and damaged a picture, frame, plant and other things as a pile of dirty water ran out of the hole. The tenant says the guttering/downpipes were blocked and this caused water to enter the roof cavity. The insulation was soddened and the gib gave away.
On 21 June 2024, an insurance assessor came on his own to look at the damage.
In early July 2024, A builder came and put a temporary piece of wood over the hole in the hallway ceiling to stop the draughts and provide protection until the roof and ceiling were fixed.
The tenant says the kitchen floor and hallway repairs took place from 23 to 26 August 2024. The tenant had a glass and wooden crockery cabinet that needed to be emptied and moved along with the fridge and washing machine. The tenant was told there would not be any inconvenience to her and they would work over the weekend to complete the job and use drop sheets. The builders covered all the benches with plastic drop sheets and the tenant was told she could make her meals in between the periods of works.
On 24 August 2024, the tenant asked the builders to leave the house by 4:00pm so she could go out for her birthday and had to ask the builders to leave at 5:30pm. They ruined her rug, left dust and dirt everywhere and made a lot of mess from the sanding of the floors. There was significant noise from the sanding. There were three to four builders working there and it was horrific. The tenant kicked the builders out and told them not to come back on Sunday as she was working. The tenant had a zoom meeting on the Monday morning, 26 August 2024, and she asked them to come at 10am. They arrived at 8:00am and did not speak any English so were hard to communicate with.
The tenant requested a cleaner for two to clean up the fine sanding dust throughout the house. The property manager approved this cost, and the tenant organised a cleaner to come. The tenant got $865.00 rent rebate (one week) in compensation for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience from that weekend of renovations, after agreeing to this sum as compensation.
The landlord says the work took six days, from 23 to 28 August 2024, as the tenant asked for the work to stop a few times due to her birthday and her work schedule. The tenant had requested no work take place on 25 and 27 August 2024.
Again, there has been no technical breach of the landlord’s obligations to repair the kitchen floor and hallway ceiling in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances, I am however satisfied the tenant, and her son suffered a significant loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience as a result of this water damage and the insurance related delays.
I award the tenant a rent rebate of $80.00 per week for the period that the tenant was living with the damage until the date the repairs commenced, for the loss of amenity, stress, and inconvenience suffered from 11 June 2024 to 22 August 2024, being 10 weeks and 2 days at a total amount of $822.86.
I find the $865.00 already paid to the tenant for the loss of amenity, stress, and inconvenience suffered during the renovation work is a fair and reasonable award to recognise the tenant’s suffering over that six-day period. C. Storage room
Not long after the tenant moved in, April 2023, there was a leak in the storage room from the hot water cylinder and water was gushing everywhere. This was fixed promptly.
The tenant confirmed the storage area is downhill and partially enclosed, but open to the side of the house and underneath of it. There is a light in this space.
On 8 October 2024, the tenant noticed that the hot water cylinder in the storage room was leaking because the box of mason jars fell as the cardboard box was soaked. The mason jars fell on to the concrete floor and smashed and the tenants’ daughters’ keepsakes from her childhood were soaked and damaged as they were also in cardboard boxes. The tenant had her camping ear, Christmas decorations etc in this storage area as it was a convenient place to store items that were not being used on a daily basis.
She sent a text to the property manager about the leak in the storage room under the house, and that the water bill was high, so this must have been going on for a while. Her daughter’s baby keepsakes and primary school memories, photos, clothes, books, drawings, soft toys etc were packed in cardboard boxes and were destroyed. A cardboard box with mason jars fell off a shelf as it was wet and they all broke.
An emergency plumber came that night to fix the leaking hot water cylinder. The tenant assumed the insulation would need replacing as it was sodden, but says that never happened. The landlord confirmed it was replaced at the end of all the renovation works and in between was not wet but may have moved slightly.
The tenant asked for compensation for the losses she has suffered. The property manager informed the tenant she was not entitled to any compensation for these losses as: a. There has been a leak in this space before, so it was reasonably foreseeable that such a leak could occur again; b. The space was made of block walls that can let in dampness; c. The space is completely open to the elements, and therefore not suitable for storage; d. The side gate is not locked, and anyone could have come on to the property and stolen the items stored in this area; and e. If the tenant chose to store items in this space, they should have been placed in plastic boxes.
The property manager also noted that clauses 13 and 18 of the tenancy agreement states that the tenant must have her own insurance to cover her belongings, as the tenant insurance held by the landlord does not cover this type of loss.
On 14 October 2024, the tenant received an automated email informing her that the leak had been fixed. She was disappointed the property manager had not called her to inform her of what had been done and if there was anything left to address, such as wet underfloor insulation.
A landlord is not automatically responsible for a tenant's lost or damaged belongings due to a leak unless the damage was a result of the landlord's negligence. If the leak was caused by a fault in the property itself, like a faulty hot water cylinder, roof or plumbing, the landlord is responsible for the cost of the repair of the damage to the property, but not the replacement of the tenant's belongings. The tenant's personal belongings should be covered by their own renter's insurance.
I am satisfied that the loss of the tenant’s belongings is not something the landlord should be held responsible for because the leaking hot water cylinder was an unforeseen event that was not due to any negligence on the landlord’s behalf. The landlord had a contractor check and fix this hot water cylinder a year prior and had not been given any reason to believe it may fail again so soon after that repair. Had the landlord been advised the hot water cylinder required replacement as it would fail imminently, then the tenant’s claim may have succeeded. However, a mitigating factor is that it was reasonably foreseeable that items stored in this area in cardboard boxes were at risk if the hot water cylinder did ever fail and the tenant chose to take that risk in exchange for the convenience of using this area for storage.
I am also satisfied that the landlord had the hot water cylinder leak addressed in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances, no breach of s45(1)(b) of the RTA has been proven and no compensation or exemplary damage awards are warranted. Failure to meet healthy homes standards
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 15 April 2023. Therefore, the landlord had 120 days from the commencement date to comply with all of the healthy homes’ standards, being Sunday, 13 August 2023. A. Moisture Ingress and Drainage
Fiona Seymour Tate claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space if it is reasonably practical to do so.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant says that the landlord did not comply with this standard as on 14 June 2024 the hallway ceiling collapse from gutters and downpipes not draining water away sufficiently.
The landlord says a healthy homes assessment was completed on 15 April 2023, just before the tenant moved in and the house was deemed fully compliant. Proof of the level of compliance is recorded in the tenancy agreement. The landlord also has a repair and maintenance record that shows it has addressed all repair and maintenance issues as they have arisen, so could be sure the property remained compliant with this standard.
The landlord says the gutters overflowed as that day there was torrential rain, and the property is surrounded by trees. The tenant says the trees are not near this area of the roof.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven it complied with the moisture ingress and drainage standard and the cause of the hallway ceiling collapse was more likely than not the volume of rain that the guttering could not handle that day and/or a blockage in the gutters or downpipes. Either way, it could be categorised as a repair and maintenance and not a healthy homes issue.
I dismiss this claim because there has been insufficient evidence submitted to prove it on the balance of probabilities. B. Insulation
Fiona Seymour Tate claims that the landlord has failed to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
The tenant says that the landlord did not comply with this standard as after the second storage room leak, the underfloor insulation was wet, hanging down and was never dried out or replaced or put back in place.
The landlord says that the photographs of the insulation hanging down was taken by the property manager during the renovation works and after the renovations it was replaced by the building contractor.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven it complied with the insulation standard and dismiss this claim because there has been insufficient evidence submitted to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Breach of privacy and quiet enjoyment
Fiona Seymour Tate claims the landlord has harassed her.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”
The RTA further confirms that contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be 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.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenant confirmed that the basis for this claim was the floor sanding for one day, Saturday 24 August 2024, during the kitchen renovation. She says the house was not liveable that day and she was forced to spend the day in her bedroom as she could not function in the house.
The landlord accepts this was an inconvenience and says this is why the tenant was given one week’s rent to cover this inconvenience. Furter, that the sanding was a foreseeable part of the renovation.
In this case, I am not of the view that the actions of the having the floors sanded as part of a kitchen floor renovation can be deemed to be harassment based on the definitions above.
Because I do not consider this is a situation of harassment, exemplary damages cannot be ordered.
I have already awarded compensation for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenant during the kitchen and hallway renovations, under the repair and maintenance section of this decision. I do not consider a further award of general damages should be ordered as no breach of privacy or quite enjoyment has been proven by the tenant.

OTHER CLAIMS

Moving Costs

The tenant seeks orders for compensation for her moving related costs as she had hoped to be in this tenancy long term and had to move out a few weeks before the end of the second 12-month fixed term tenancy due to the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience of the leak related issues she had experienced during the tenancy.
There is no provision in the RTA which I can see, nor which the tenant has identified, from which this claim can be based.
There was no guarantee that the partes would have continued the tenancy beyond the end of the fixed term, on 19 April 2025, and the tenant made the choice to move house of her own volition.
Because I cannot make any orders around moving related costs, this claim must be dismissed. Cost associated with preparation and attendance at Tribunal hearing
The tenant seeks orders for compensation for her time spent preparing for and attending the Tribunal hearing.
Again, there is no provision in the RTA which I can see, nor which the tenant has identified, from which this claim can be based.
Because I cannot make any orders around time related costs for preparation and attendance at a Tribunal hearing, this claim must be dismissed. Double payment of rent after moving and paying for double rent
The tenant seeks orders for compensation for the two weeks rent she had to pay for the same week she moved out of this tenancy and into her new tenancy.
There is no provision in the RTA which I can see, nor which the tenant has identified, from which this claim can be based.
Because I cannot make any orders around moving related costs, this claim must be dismissed. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with her claims I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5211231 — Property damage at 448 Beach Road, Murrays Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5211231 — Property damage at 448 Beach Road, Murrays Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions