What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5213131 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5213131?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5213131?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5213131?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12841063-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5213131 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5213131?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5213131?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5213131?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12841063-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9215-9223 State Highway 35, Raukokore, RD 3, Opotiki Tenancy Tribunal Case 5213131 — Leaks

Order

The application is dismissed.
No suppression orders apply to this Order.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant attended by phone as she was unable to drive to Whakatane for the face-to-face hearing for medical reasons.
The landlord attended in person and was represented by one of the trustees.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages in relation to a claim the landlord failed to maintain the premises and did not lodge the bond. The tenant applied for a refund of the bond. The tenancy ended in 2024 and the premises was in Ruakokore. The landlord opposed all claims.
The landlord had a cross application that had not been filed with Tenancy services therefore I declined to hear the landlord’s application.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations:
That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un- likely, 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 deciding any particular 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. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. Exemplary damages 1 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 2 the Court of Appeal said: “Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.”
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act.
Before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the intent of the person in committing the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed, the public interest and whether it is just to make the award. 3
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA.

REFUND OF BOND AND BOND NOT LODGED

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The tenant also says the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. 4 Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 5
The tenant says she paid a bond of $500 and relied on a letter dated 26 November 2021 confirming that a 2-week bond was required.
The landlord provided the rent summary and an email from their accountant and also called the accountant as a witness who said that a bond was not paid by the tenant.
The tenant did not provide evidence confirming she paid the bond, ie by way of a letter from WINZ or bank statement. The tenant did not challenge the accountant’s evidence.
I am satisfied on the evidence provided that the tenant did not pay a bond, therefore the claims for a refund of the bond and that the bond was not lodged are dismissed. 2 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732(Cooke P) 3 Section 109 of the RTA. 4 See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 5 See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. 6
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 7
However, a party, may not apply for exemplary damages later than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. 8 The tenancy ended on 31 January 2024 and application was filed on 26 March 2025. Therefore, even if successful in proving the landlord failed to maintain the property, the claim for exemplary damages must fail for being filed after the specified time frame for bringing a claim.
The extent of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 9 The Court noted that there was no absolute liability or responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. 10 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time.
In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd 11 the Court stated: [15] I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, 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 may be.
The tenant says the landlord failed to maintain the premises in various ways: a. Toilet seat – the tenant says the landlord did not repair the toilet seat when it was broken during the tenancy. No photographs were provided of 6 Section 45(1) (b) RTA. 7 See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 8 Section 109 (2)(b) RTA. This time limit does not apply to unlawful acts under s 19(2)and 30(2) RTA. 9 Barfoot & Thompson v Casey CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007 10 Section 40(1)(d) RTA 11 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15] the damaged toilet and the tenant did not expand in her evidence to explain how the toilet seat was damaged. b. Roof - The tenant says the roof was damaged and not repaired for a year. c. Water filter - The tenant says the water filter was broken during the tenancy and she had to purchase her own water. Receipts were not provided to show that the tenant had to purchase her own water nor any evidence about the water quality. d. Doors - The tenant says the doors were not sealed and fitted correctly. e. Dishwasher - The tenant says the dishwasher was incorrectly fitted and leaked, resulting on her slipping on the floor. f. Solar power - The tenant says the fridge, freezer and kettle were damaged by the solar turning off and on. No evidence was provided corroborating that these items had been damaged or that the damage was caused by the solar power turning off and on. g. Garden - The tenant says the garden was damaged by pigs; she did not know to whom the pigs belonged to
The tenant says she had arranged for a lawyer to file photographs in support of the claim. The tenant did not request to file evidence at the hearing and in any event the Tribunal had made directions in the last two orders for additional evidence to be filed and the tenant had not complied with the directions.
The landlord disputes the claims and says they were proactive and responsive in addressing any issues that arose with respect to maintenance and damage. The landlord called five witnesses, including a local builder who coordinated the build of the tenant’s premises and the current chair of the Trust. The evidence from the landlord, was in summary - a. Toilet seat – that the toilet seat was functioning. b. Roof – the builder gave evidence that the roof was damaged, but it was promptly made watertight to avoid long term damage until a permanent repair was undertaken. c. Water filter – the landlord attended to the tenant’s concerns about the water filer. d. Doors – the builder confirmed that issues with the doors were remedied in consultation with the tenant. e. Dishwasher – the issue with the dishwasher was rectified once the issue became apparent. f. Solar power - The current chairperson himself was responsible for the solar power and would promptly repair it when it turned off. The landlord says if the tenant did not want to use the solar power it was open to them to arrange an alternative power source. Further the landlord said the payments in relation to the diesel for the power generator were a separate arrangement to that with the landlord. g. Garden - The pigs were not the responsibility of the landlord.
The landlord raised that no receipts were provided in support of the claims for compensation.
On reviewing the evidence, I consider the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence that the landlord did not meet their responsibilities in respect of maintenance of the premises. The tenant has not provided photographs or corroborating correspondence in respect of the various concerns around maintenance. The landlord however provided evidence from a number of witnesses, who attended the hearing in person and gave clear and concise evidence that the landlord had in place systems for tenants to inform them of issues in relation to maintenance, acknowledging that at times maintenance or repairs were required and the steps taken to attend to the maintenance. For these reasons the claim for compensation and exemplary damages in respect of a failure to maintain the premises is dismissed.
However, if I am wrong in my finding in respect of the landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises, I would have declined to award compensation as the tenant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove she has suffered a loss in relation to any claimed lack of maintenance.

FILING FEE

Because the tenant has not been successful with the claim I have not reimbursed the filing fee.

NAME SUPPRESSION

Section 95A of the RTA relates to suppression orders. The relevant provisions state: (1)The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.... ...(4) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (5) An order under subsection (4) may be made subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate.
On my enquiry, the landlord confirmed that name suppression was not sought.
The tenant applied for name suppression however as she has been unsuccessful in the substantive claim against the landlord, name suppression in respect of this order is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5213131 — Leaks at 9215-9223 State Highway 35, Raukokore, RD 3, Opotiki

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5213131 — Leaks at 9215-9223 State Highway 35, Raukokore, RD 3, Opotiki

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

REFUND OF BOND AND BOND NOT LODGED

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

REFUND OF BOND AND BOND NOT LODGED

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.