How much money was awarded in case 5218453?

Compensation: Loss Of Use: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5218453?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5218453?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12360920-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5218453?

Compensation: Loss Of Use: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5218453?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5218453?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12360920-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 18, 84A Boulcott Street, Wellington Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5218453 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5218453 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5218453 — net $527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of use	$500.00	Loss of use
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$527.00
Bond	$3,880.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$527.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Oakheart Properties Limited T/A: Quinovic Property Management Alisha Hunt must pay [The tenant/s] $527.00 immediately,

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via teleconference on 17 July 2025.

The tenancy was from 4 February 2023 until 16 February 2025. After the tenancy ended, the tenant applied for refund of the bond and compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises. I deal with the bond issue first. Refund of the bond

The landlord has a claim against the bond, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.

The tenant gave explanation as to which one of the tenants should be liable for burnt marks in the kitchen as well as whether it should be fair wear and tear.

There is no need to go into the details as section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. Compensation and exemplary damages for failure to maintain

Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching this obligation 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 the landlord 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 landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the tenant, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.

The tenant has raised various maintenance jobs over the two-year tenancy: a. A faulty bedroom door that would not close; b. A completely non-functional oven; c. The water tap in the kitchen was loose and leaning to one side; d. The loose kitchen drawer front came off; e. Loose shower head holder in the bathroom; and f. Partially clogged shower drain.

The tenant raised the faulty bedroom door issue to the landlord in writing on 5 March 2023 but received no reply. This was not fixed.

The kitchen tap and the shower head issues were raised in writing on 31 January 2024. They were fixed in November 2024.

There was no evidence of the tenant raising the kitchen drawer to the landlord but the landlord noted it during an inspection on 16 March 2024. This was fixed in November 2024.

The oven and the shower-drain issues were never raised in writing to the landlord.

The tenant sought 10 percent rent reduction for the loss of use due to the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises. The tenant also claimed that there should be exemplary damages awarded against the landlord as property management companies should be held to a higher standard.

However, in addition to the tenant’s responsibility under section 40(1)(d) RTA to notify the landlord of the need to repair, there is a duty for the tenant to take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising out from the landlord’s breach under section 49 RTA.

This means in this instance, that the tenant should have given written notice of all the maintenance requests to the landlord. Then, the tenant should have followed up with a 14-day notice to the landlord to remedy the breach of maintenance responsibilities to escalate the matter further.

I do not find that the reduction of rent in the range of 10 percent is justified. I do not find that the tenant has established that there was intentional failure of the landlord to maintain the premises to justify awarding exemplary damages.

Had the landlord failed even after the tenant raising the issues via a 14-day notice to remedy, then there may have been public interest in awarding exemplary damages. However, that is not the case for this tenancy.

However, I do agree that there would have been some inconvenience due to the maintenance issues. Noting the lack of the tenant’s repeated requests for maintenance, I order the landlord to pay the tenant $500.00 as a nominal acknowledgment of the tenant’s loss of use. Filing fee reimbursement

Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5218453 — net $527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of use	$500.00	Loss of use
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$527.00
Bond	$3,880.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$527.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Oakheart Properties Limited T/A: Quinovic Property Management Alisha Hunt must pay [The tenant/s] $527.00 immediately,

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via teleconference on 17 July 2025.
The tenancy was from 4 February 2023 until 16 February 2025. After the tenancy ended, the tenant applied for refund of the bond and compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises. I deal with the bond issue first. Refund of the bond
The landlord has a claim against the bond, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
The tenant gave explanation as to which one of the tenants should be liable for burnt marks in the kitchen as well as whether it should be fair wear and tear.
There is no need to go into the details as section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. Compensation and exemplary damages for failure to maintain
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching this obligation 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 the landlord 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 landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the tenant, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The tenant has raised various maintenance jobs over the two-year tenancy: a. A faulty bedroom door that would not close; b. A completely non-functional oven; c. The water tap in the kitchen was loose and leaning to one side; d. The loose kitchen drawer front came off; e. Loose shower head holder in the bathroom; and f. Partially clogged shower drain.
The tenant raised the faulty bedroom door issue to the landlord in writing on 5 March 2023 but received no reply. This was not fixed.
The kitchen tap and the shower head issues were raised in writing on 31 January 2024. They were fixed in November 2024.
There was no evidence of the tenant raising the kitchen drawer to the landlord but the landlord noted it during an inspection on 16 March 2024. This was fixed in November 2024.
The oven and the shower-drain issues were never raised in writing to the landlord.
The tenant sought 10 percent rent reduction for the loss of use due to the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises. The tenant also claimed that there should be exemplary damages awarded against the landlord as property management companies should be held to a higher standard.
However, in addition to the tenant’s responsibility under section 40(1)(d) RTA to notify the landlord of the need to repair, there is a duty for the tenant to take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising out from the landlord’s breach under section 49 RTA.
This means in this instance, that the tenant should have given written notice of all the maintenance requests to the landlord. Then, the tenant should have followed up with a 14-day notice to the landlord to remedy the breach of maintenance responsibilities to escalate the matter further.
I do not find that the reduction of rent in the range of 10 percent is justified. I do not find that the tenant has established that there was intentional failure of the landlord to maintain the premises to justify awarding exemplary damages.
Had the landlord failed even after the tenant raising the issues via a 14-day notice to remedy, then there may have been public interest in awarding exemplary damages. However, that is not the case for this tenancy.
However, I do agree that there would have been some inconvenience due to the maintenance issues. Noting the lack of the tenant’s repeated requests for maintenance, I order the landlord to pay the tenant $500.00 as a nominal acknowledgment of the tenant’s loss of use. Filing fee reimbursement
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5218453 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 18, 84A Boulcott Street, Wellington Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5218453 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 18, 84A Boulcott Street, Wellington Central,

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