What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5228511 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 5228511?

He [Tenant] Name And Identifying Det…: $5,831.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5228511?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5228511?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11842957-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5228511 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 5228511?

He [Tenant] Name And Identifying Det…: $5,831.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5228511?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5228511?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11842957-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5228511 — State of repair

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5228511. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
he [Tenant] name and identifying details. 2. Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agents for and on behalf of Klaudia Lozica is	$5,831.43		he [Tenant] name and identifying details. 2. Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agents for and on behalf of Klaudia Lozica is

Both parties attended the hearing.

The Tenants claim that the Landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under s 45, 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The Landlord is the owner of a unit within a body corporate complex. From shortly after the tenancy began, the Tenants reported a persistent loud banging noise emanating from the ceiling area, particularly during windy conditions. The noise was severe enough to disturb sleep and daily living. The Tenants began documenting the issue on 29 May 2024 and made approximately 18 separate complaints or requests over the next 10 months. Despite the Landlord's attempts to engage with building management and arrange inspections, the issue was not resolved, and the noise continued until the end of the tenancy.

The Tribunal finds that the Landlord has breached their obligation under s 45(1)(b) to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The extent of the disruption to the Tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premises justifies a reduction in rent.

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 this case, I am not satisfied that the Landlord’s conduct meets the threshold for intention required under section 109(3). Although the Landlord failed to resolve the issue, the evidence shows they did take steps to investigate and escalate the matter with external parties. The lack of resolution appears to stem from ineffective coordination and delays rather than deliberate inaction. Exemplary damages are therefore not awarded.

However, compensation is appropriate. The Tribunal accepts that the ongoing ceiling noise caused material distress, loss of sleep, and loss of enjoyment of the premises. Given the severity of the disruption during parts of the tenancy, and the ongoing failure to resolve the problem, I consider the following rent reduction to be fair and proportionate: a. A 60% reduction in rent for a period of 60 days, during which the disruption was particularly severe and well-documented. b. A 10% reduction for the remaining 268 days, reflecting the ongoing but less acute impact over the rest of the tenancy.

Weekly rent was $650.00. The calculated rent rebate is: 60 days (approx. 8.57 weeks) × $650 × 60% = $3,342.86 268 days (approx. 38.29 weeks) × $650 × 10% = $2,488.57 Total compensation = $5,831.43 (loss of amenity).

Because the Tenants have succeeded in their claim, and have had to come to the Tribunal to seek redress, I grant them name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5228511. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
he [Tenant] name and identifying details. 2. Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agents for and on behalf of Klaudia Lozica is	$5,831.43		he [Tenant] name and identifying details. 2. Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agents for and on behalf of Klaudia Lozica is

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant] name and identifying details.
Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agents for and on behalf of Klaudia Lozica is to pay [Tenant] $5,831.43 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tenants claim that the Landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under s 45, 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Landlord is the owner of a unit within a body corporate complex. From shortly after the tenancy began, the Tenants reported a persistent loud banging noise emanating from the ceiling area, particularly during windy conditions. The noise was severe enough to disturb sleep and daily living. The Tenants began documenting the issue on 29 May 2024 and made approximately 18 separate complaints or requests over the next 10 months. Despite the Landlord's attempts to engage with building management and arrange inspections, the issue was not resolved, and the noise continued until the end of the tenancy.
The Tribunal finds that the Landlord has breached their obligation under s 45(1)(b) to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The extent of the disruption to the Tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premises justifies a reduction in rent.
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 this case, I am not satisfied that the Landlord’s conduct meets the threshold for intention required under section 109(3). Although the Landlord failed to resolve the issue, the evidence shows they did take steps to investigate and escalate the matter with external parties. The lack of resolution appears to stem from ineffective coordination and delays rather than deliberate inaction. Exemplary damages are therefore not awarded.
However, compensation is appropriate. The Tribunal accepts that the ongoing ceiling noise caused material distress, loss of sleep, and loss of enjoyment of the premises. Given the severity of the disruption during parts of the tenancy, and the ongoing failure to resolve the problem, I consider the following rent reduction to be fair and proportionate: a. A 60% reduction in rent for a period of 60 days, during which the disruption was particularly severe and well-documented. b. A 10% reduction for the remaining 268 days, reflecting the ongoing but less acute impact over the rest of the tenancy.
Weekly rent was $650.00. The calculated rent rebate is: 60 days (approx. 8.57 weeks) × $650 × 60% = $3,342.86 268 days (approx. 38.29 weeks) × $650 × 10% = $2,488.57 Total compensation = $5,831.43 (loss of amenity).
Because the Tenants have succeeded in their claim, and have had to come to the Tribunal to seek redress, I grant them name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5228511 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5228511 — State of repair

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions