What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5218651 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 5218651?

Compensation: FTM Oven: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: FTM Waste Disposal: $292.50 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5218651?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5218651?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12020952-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5218651 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 5218651?

Compensation: FTM Oven: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: FTM Waste Disposal: $292.50 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5218651?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5218651?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12020952-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5218651 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5218651 — net $1,842.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$250.00	Failure to lodge bond
Compensation: FTM oven	$300.00	FTM oven
Compensation: FTM waste disposal	$292.50	FTM waste disposal
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$1,000.00	Failure to maintain
Net award	$1,842.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,842.50

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5218651 — net $1,842.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$250.00	Failure to lodge bond
Compensation: FTM oven	$300.00	FTM oven
Compensation: FTM waste disposal	$292.50	FTM waste disposal
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$1,000.00	Failure to maintain
Net award	$1,842.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,842.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Dequn (Gloria) Zeng must pay [The tenant/s] $1,842.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The tenants’ claims for breach of quiet enjoyment and breach of s47, 60A and 60AA are not proven and therefore dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 17 June 2025.
The tenancy began on the 28 April 2023 and ended on the 14 March 2025. The tenants filed their claim soon after the tenancy ended.
The property is a well-appointed 4-bedroom 2-bathroom home in [suburb]. The landlord has owned the property since 2021. The property has been rented out since the landlord has owned it.
On the 10 February 2025 the landlord told the tenant that they intended to put the property on the market for sale. The following day the tenant gave the landlord a 28 day notice to end the tenancy and the tenancy ended on the 14 March 2025.
The tenants claim: a. That the landlord failed to lodge their bond with the Bond Centre. b. That the landlord failed to include healthy homes standard information statement in the tenancy agreement c. That the landlord failed to provide and maintain the property to a reasonable condition s (45(1)(b)):
No working oven for 11 weeks (28/4/23 to 4/7/23)
No working waste disposal (15/6/24 to 14/3/25)
Failed to fix the water leak under the sink
Broken toilet seat, and then cracked cistern in ensuite 15/06/24 to 14/3/25. d. That the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by using the tenant’s cloth and dish to catch the leaks under the sink on the 6 February. e. That the landlord listed the property for a new tenancy without telling the tenants during the tenancy.
The tenant withdrew a further claim, at the hearing, of breach of quiet enjoyment relating to the time of day that the landlord contacted them.
The tenant claims compensation and where appropriate exemplary damages. The burden of proof and my approach to this decision.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) their claim. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
I confirm that before completing this decision that I have taken into consideration all the evidence including documents and photographs provided by the parties. Relevant legal principles – compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. 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. The tenant’s compensation claims are for actual losses and for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 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 are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) 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. The Bond.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants paid a bond of $3400 to the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy.
At the end of the tenancy, they completed a bond form on tenancy services letterhead.
The landlord says that they thought that the bond had been paid into the bond centre, and that is why they had the tenant complete an end of tenancy bond form. The landlord says that he became aware on the 14 March that the bond had not been lodged and paid the bond out to the tenants the following day without deduction.
The landlord says that it paid the tenants out the bond, even though there was a dispute about damage at the property. The landlord says that the failure to lodge the bond was an administrative oversight.
I am satisfied that the landlord breached s19(2) of the RTA by failing to lodge the bond with the bond centre within 23 days of receipt.
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.
In the case of TMT Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 the Judge said “Parliament's intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law." Para 37.
A bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.
The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).
However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement and has other tenancies (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01); the landlord is experienced (Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02); and where the landlord knew of the obligation from the bond form signed by the tenant (Fu v Florendo [2013] DC Manukau, CIV-2013-092-2373).
I am satisfied that this is case there the landlord’s intention should be inferred, and exemplary damages awarded. The landlord is a real estate agent, she has been a landlord before. She was aware of her obligations to lodge the bond and did not have adequate systems in place to ensure that this occurred.
I award the tenant exemplary damages of $250.00 for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond, this takes into account: That the landlord paid the bond out in full to the tenants when it realised the bond had not been lodged. •That the tenant was placed in an uncertain position because the landlord has not lodged their bond. The tenant says that when they found out the bond had not been lodged that they were in dispute with the landlord over issues that had arisen at the last inspection and therefore were left worried that their bond would be withheld, and they would have no recourse. •That it is in the public interest to deter landlord’s from failing to lodge bond. •This amount is consistent with similar levels of exemplary damages awarded in similar claims. Did the landlord fail to include the Healthy Homes information in the tenancy agreement?
The tenants says that the landlord breached section 13A(lA), 13A(1CA) and 13(2) of the Act by failing to provide insulation statements, 13 (1A), Healthy Homes statements in their tenancy agreement.
The tenancy agreement did not have the requisite statements. The only statement was about the insulation and that was not completed.
A beach of these sections is an unlawful act pursuant to s13A(1F) (a) RTA of which exemplary damages of up to $750.00.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not provide insulation or Healthy Homes statements in the tenancy agreement and therefore breached sections 13A(lA), 13A(1CA) and 13(2) of the Act.
An application for exemplary damages must be brought within 12 months of the breach. (See s109(2)(b) RTA The tenant has failed to bring this claim within 12 months and therefore no exemplary damages can be awarded for this breach.
There was no complaint that the property did not meet the Healthy Homes Standards and therefore no compensation should be awarded, as there was no loss suffered by the tenant. Did the landlord fail to provide or maintain the premises in a reasonable condition?
Section 45(1)(b) RTA provides that the landlord shall: 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; and
The landlord’s obligation to repair is not absolute, a landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage, and a tenant must notify the landlord as soon as damage becomes apparent as to the need for repair. Together these obligations mean that a landlord has a responsibility to only repair and maintain items after they are broken or damaged or a reasonably observable as being damaged and in need of repair.
A breach of the failure to maintain may also be a breach of another section or regulation, if this is the case the Tribunal must one censure the landlord once. 1 The oven
The tenant claims that the oven did not work from the beginning of the tenancy until the 11 July 2022. The tenant noted the oven was not working in the inspection report that she filled in at the beginning of the tenancy and that was sent to the landlord. The tenant also notified the landlord of the issue by text. The tenant provided a copy of her relevant text messages with the landlord about the oven. At first, the parties thought that the tenant was not using the oven properly as the previous tenants had not had any trouble. Then the landlord sent someone to look at the oven, finally after 3 months the landlord purchased an oven and had someone install it.
During the time that the oven was not usable, the tenant could not cook using the stove.
All homes must have a means of baking – See Regulation 7 Housing Improvement Regulations 1947.
The landlord says that it took time to assess the problem, find out what was wrong with the oven and to then order and install the oven. The landlord says that the time taken was reasonable and that the tenants could still cook food using their cooktop, microwave and BBQ.
I consider 3 months to be an unreasonable amount of time to repair this defect, even with delays caused by tradesperson availability. At the very least the tenant should have been given a rent abatement for the inability to cook in the oven.
I award the tenant $300 for this breach being compensation for the inability to use the stove of $25.00 per week for 12 weeks. 1 Manage My Rental v Baxter [2015] NZDC 12011 Waste Disposal, Leak under the sink and toilet seat/ cistern.
I have determined these claims together as they all occurred in or around the same time.
The landlord did an inspection of the property on or about the 11 May 2024, the tenant was present for the inspection, and she says she pointed out items that needed repair. The tenant says that this included a leak under the bench from the water filter and the toilet seat being loose.
The tenant says that around this time the waste disposal stopped working and leaked into the cupboard under the bench as well. The waste disposal started to emit a foul smell, that pervaded the open plan kitchen and dining.
The tenants say that they would have told the landlord about these problems, probably by telephone. On the 15 June the landlord, who was obviously referring to previous communication asked the tenant to “take a photo of the gadget that has a problem and text me the issue in writing” The landlord said that this information was needed for the plumber and to arrange a time to come and fix it.
The tenant wrote an email to the landlord, that evening that said: “I apologise for not being in touch since our phone call, I have been extremely unwell and have been focused on my health. In regard to the sink/ plumbing issue the water filter has been leaking water into the cupboard and continues to do so. The insinkerator leaks and had begun to smell, it has been removed at this point but needs to be replaced.” The tenant also sent a text asking the landlord to hold off sending the plumber for a few days as she was so unwell.
On or about the 18 August 2024 the tenant followed up with the landlord asking if the landlord had got a plumber, the landlord replied saying she was talking to the plumber and would send one, the landlord asked the tenant to explain the issues again. On the 19 August the tenant sent an email to the landlord confirming the insinkerator was broken and the water filter is leaking. The tenant then said ”earlier on the tenancy I mentioned that the toilet seat in the ensuite was loose, it is no longer able to tightened to the toilet itself and slips free when sitting on it. It tends to slam close and hit the cistern when in use”
The landlord and tenant sent other texts and photographs describing the issues and the landlord assured the tenant that a plumber would come and deal with the issue.
Despite those assurances no plumber was sent to the property between August and the next inspection in January.
The landlord inspected the property again in January 2025. The tenant was not able to be present. The landlord sent a text message saying: “ I was wondering whether any issue in the house that need to fixed? Or everything is Ok. Thanks for looking after the house well.”
The tenant responded by confirming that the water filter was still leaking at the waste disposal unit needed replacement. The tenant also drew the landlord’s attention to a crack in the cistern of the toilet in the ensuite that had occurred as a result of the loose toilet seat banging against it.
The tenant confirmed that the toilet was still working. On the 9 February 2025 the landlord replaced the toilet.
The waste disposal and leaking sink were not fixed before the tenancy ended.
I am satisfied that the landlord breached s45(1)(b) by failing to repair the leak under the sink, replace the insinkerator and repair the loose toilet seat.
The landlord appears to only have been told of the crack to the cistern in mid- January and replaced the toilet on the 9 February, I do not consider that the landlord was in breach of the RTA in respect of the issue with the cistern crack.
I award the tenant $292.50 or $7.50 per week for 39 weeks as compensation for the lack of the waste disposal unit. The tenant was entitled to a waste disposal unit that was in working order and this should have been dealt with quickly. The tenant was paying a high level of rent for a well-appointed home and should have expected chattels that were broken would be repaired or replaced.
I do not award any compensation for the toilet or water leaking as I will consider the effect on the tenant in an exemplary damages breach.
I am satisfied that the landlord failed to maintain the property by failing to repair within a reasonable time frame the oven, toilet seat, leak in the water filter, and waste disposal.
I am satisfied that the landlord acted with intention, she was aware of the problem and the tenant had given numerous notifications and had followed up with issues.
Although the tenant referred to the issues as minor, that did not excuse the landlord from attending to them.
I award the tenant’s $1000.00 in exemplary damages for this breach, this takes into account: a. The nature of the breaches- whilst the issues were relatively minor, they were also highly inconvenient and annoying. The tenants were reminded of the problem every time they used their ensuite toilet. The leaks under the bench meant that the container catching them had to changed every 4 days or it would smell. b. The length of the breach- the toilet seat had been loose from early on in the tenancy, the insinkerator and leak were notified in May / June 2024 and the toilet seat becoming so loose that it ‘slipped’ was from August 2024 until 9 February 2025. c. The tenants say that they felt annoyed, frustrated, stressed and resentful as they were paying high rent and not getting the ‘product that they were paying for.” d. The public interest- there is public interest that tenants are provided with chattels and fixtures that are working and that when an item needs repair at a property that it is repaired within a reasonable period of time. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
The tenant says that on the 6 March 2025 the landlord came to the property to consider the house for staging and to look at the leak problem. The tenant was not present. After the landlord looked at the tap, they took one of the tenants tea towels out of a drawer and laid it on the cupboard base, then they used a baking dish from the cupboard to catch the drips. The landlord sent the tenant a photograph of what she had done because, she says she felt uncomfortable having used the tenant’s cloth and dish.
The tenant was upset that the landlord had been through the drawers and cupboards without her permission and used her items.
S38 of the RTA provides that 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
Whilst the landlord used the tenant’s cloth and dish, I do not consider that this was a breach of the tenants quiet enjoyment, because I consider it was necessary to ensure that the cupboard was not damaged from the water leak. The cloth and dish used were appropriate in the absence of other containers, and the landlord immediately let the tenant know that she had used them. Did the landlord breach the RTA by advertising the property for rent during the tenancy?
The tenants says that the landlord advertised the property for rent whilst they were still in the property and before the end of the fixed term tenancy in April 2024. The tenants produced evidence that showed that the landlord had listed the property for rent [online] on the 28 February 2024 for $950 per week and being available on the 29 April 2024.
On the 5 April the landlord sent an email to the tenants asking if they planned to renew the tenancy or stay on, and advising that the rent would increase, the email also said “Some people may want to view the property next week, please let me know a suitable time for viewings – perhaps after hours on weekdays/weekends.”
The tenants say they were shocked and confused by the landlord’s reference to other people having viewings. They replied by email the next day setting out the law as they (quite correctly) understood it an saying “Given that we as tenants are outside of our required notice (28 days before the end of the fixed term)to either extend of renew the fixed term tenancy when the current period ends the tenancy will cease to become a fixed term tenancy agreement.”
The tenancy became periodic, and the landlord issued a rent increase notice.
The tenants looked online in June 2024 and found that the advertisement for rent was still listed.
The tenants say that the landlord breached s47, S60A and s60AA of the RTA. I am satisfied that the landlord did not breach any of those sections of the RTA because s47 only relates to the ‘sale’ of the property, there was no breach of s60A, the tenancy continued as a periodic tenancy and not breach of s60AA as the landlord did not ‘purport’ to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant’s claims that the landlord breached s47, 60A and s60AA are therefore dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression.
As the tenants have been mostly successful, I award them the filing fee and grant them name suppression as requested.
The landlord also requested name suppression, but I do not grant the landlord name suppression for the following reasons: a. The awards made against them are for failure to lodge the bond and maintenance, these are breaches which the public has an interest in knowing the identity of the landlord. b. The landlord’s interests do not outweigh the public interest in this instance.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5218651 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5218651 — State of repair

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