What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5230879 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5230879?

Property Damage: $170.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5230879?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5230879?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12212921-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5230879 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5230879?

Property Damage: $170.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5230879?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5230879?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12212921-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

397 Great South Road, Opaheke, Papakura 2113 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5230879 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5230879 — net $197.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: lawnmowing repairs	$170.00	lawnmowing repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$197.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$197.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $197.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Roberta Perese represented the landlord.
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages against the landlord for various breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).
The tenant has since vacated the premises and accepted a tenancy at another property with the same landlord on 1 July 2025; the tenant abandoned his claims for work orders against the landlord on this property accordingly. Was the landlord’s notice retaliatory?
The tenant however continues to claim that the 90 days’ notice received on 9 April 2025 from the landlord to end the periodic tenancy on 14 July 2025 is retaliatory and of no effect. The tenant wishes to relocate back to this property if possible and ordered by the Tribunal.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Having heard from the parties and reviewed the evidence filed, I do not consider that the landlord’s notice is retaliatory. The landlord’s giving of the notice was not motivated in retaliation to unresolved maintenance issues raised by the tenant or exercise of the tenant’s rights under the Act. The social housing landlord was always prepared to undertake necessary maintenance of the premises when required.
The landlord’s motivation for giving of the notice is in placing other more suitable social housing tenants into this 3 bedroom property which contained accessibility access and facilities and rehousing the current tenant into another property which better suited his needs. I accept that when the tenant was housed into this premises together with his mother 19 years ago, the current property suited their needs but some of the accessibility access and facilities are now superfluous to this remaining tenant’s needs. It is not unreasonable for the social housing landlord to look at relocating tenants from time to time to suit the needs of not only the subject tenant but considering the collective needs of all the tenants (and successful social housing applicants) in the landlord’s pool of tenants in need of housing.
For those reasons, I dismiss the tenant’s claim that the notice to end this tenancy (and relocate him to another property) is retaliatory.
The tenant’s claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA also fails.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
For the same reasons as set out above, I do not consider that the landlord given an invalid notice to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord’s 90 days’ notice is upheld and given that the tenant has duly vacated and relocated to another property, I make no further orders on this issue.

Did the landlord breach their maintenance obligations?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must: a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; c) comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety; and d) compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where— (i)the state of disrepair has arisen otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant and is likely to cause injury to persons or property or is otherwise serious and urgent; and (ii)the tenant has given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so.
Breaching any of these 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.
The tenant seeks reimbursement of costs for his time and materials on repairs to the front door, gate, window and wheelchair ramp which the tenant carried out on the premises.
However, the tenant has not given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to give the landlord notice before he carried those repairs. Further, I do not consider the repairs to the front door, gate, window and wheelchair ramp which the tenant carried out himself are likely to cause injury to persons or property or is otherwise serious and urgent.
For those reasons, I decline reimbursement of costs claimed by the tenant under section 45(1)(d) RTA.
I also decline the tenant’s claim for compensation of $2,640.00 for 44 hours of his time spent at the premises to supervise or observe maintenance work carried out by the landlord’s contractors during the tenancy.
The landlord has not asked the tenant to observe or supervise the work undertaken by their contractors. While the tenant is entitled to be at home while the work is being carried out, there is no requirement for his presence. The decision to be at home while maintenance work is being carried out lies with the tenant himself and this choice by the tenant does not mean that he will be compensated for his time in attendance.
The tenant’s claim for compensation of $300.00 for excessive power bills for July and August 2024 fails for lack of evidence. There is insufficient material before the Tribunal for objective comparison to be made on whether there has been excessive power use for those months, and if so, what is the cause.
I set out the relevant legal principles that I must address when dealing with complaints raised by the tenant regarding having to put up with the landlord carrying out numerous maintenance work while tenanting the premises for the last 19 years.
I reiterate that under section 45 RTA, a landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they applied to the premises.
A tenant has a corresponding duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs (see section 40(1)(d) RTA).
The landlord’s obligation is therefore to repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair, either from observing the property or notice from the tenant: “... the obligation of the landlord, under section 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.” (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010; see also Merwald Real Estate v Lanauze DC Auckland, MA151-89, 2 May 1989).
Compensation ought to be awarded for breach of the landlord’s obligations and where the other party has suffered a loss or inconvenience because of that breach.
It goes without saying that only if the landlord is found to in breach of their obligations under section 45 (as set out above) and the tenant has carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify and allow maintenance to be attended to, would an award of compensation be considered and made.
Where the tenant has not carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify or not allow maintenance to be attended to, no award of compensation will be made.
Where the tenant has notified the landlord and the landlord has carried out maintenance within a reasonable time, no award of compensation will be made.
Considering the specific instances of complaints raised by the tenant of items requiring attention throughout the tenancy, I find that the social housing landlord had carried out inspection and undertaken repairs to the complained items within a reasonable time. Consequently, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages of $40,000 for alleged failure under section 45 RTA.
I allow the tenant’s claim for compensation of $170 for repairs to his lawnmower due to the landlord’s contractors failing to remove scaffolding debris from the premises which damaged the blade of his lawnmower.
Pursuant to section 102(4)(b) RTA, I order the respondent to pay the applicant the filing fee paid for the application because the tenant has been partly successful in his claim. I also direct the suppression of the tenant’s name under the circumstances.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5230879 — net $197.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: lawnmowing repairs	$170.00	lawnmowing repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$197.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$197.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $197.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Roberta Perese represented the landlord.
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages against the landlord for various breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).
The tenant has since vacated the premises and accepted a tenancy at another property with the same landlord on 1 July 2025; the tenant abandoned his claims for work orders against the landlord on this property accordingly. Was the landlord’s notice retaliatory?
The tenant however continues to claim that the 90 days’ notice received on 9 April 2025 from the landlord to end the periodic tenancy on 14 July 2025 is retaliatory and of no effect. The tenant wishes to relocate back to this property if possible and ordered by the Tribunal.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Having heard from the parties and reviewed the evidence filed, I do not consider that the landlord’s notice is retaliatory. The landlord’s giving of the notice was not motivated in retaliation to unresolved maintenance issues raised by the tenant or exercise of the tenant’s rights under the Act. The social housing landlord was always prepared to undertake necessary maintenance of the premises when required.
The landlord’s motivation for giving of the notice is in placing other more suitable social housing tenants into this 3 bedroom property which contained accessibility access and facilities and rehousing the current tenant into another property which better suited his needs. I accept that when the tenant was housed into this premises together with his mother 19 years ago, the current property suited their needs but some of the accessibility access and facilities are now superfluous to this remaining tenant’s needs. It is not unreasonable for the social housing landlord to look at relocating tenants from time to time to suit the needs of not only the subject tenant but considering the collective needs of all the tenants (and successful social housing applicants) in the landlord’s pool of tenants in need of housing.
For those reasons, I dismiss the tenant’s claim that the notice to end this tenancy (and relocate him to another property) is retaliatory.
The tenant’s claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA also fails.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
For the same reasons as set out above, I do not consider that the landlord given an invalid notice to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord’s 90 days’ notice is upheld and given that the tenant has duly vacated and relocated to another property, I make no further orders on this issue.

Did the landlord breach their maintenance obligations?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must: a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; c) comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety; and d) compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where— (i)the state of disrepair has arisen otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant and is likely to cause injury to persons or property or is otherwise serious and urgent; and (ii)the tenant has given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so.
Breaching any of these 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.
The tenant seeks reimbursement of costs for his time and materials on repairs to the front door, gate, window and wheelchair ramp which the tenant carried out on the premises.
However, the tenant has not given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to give the landlord notice before he carried those repairs. Further, I do not consider the repairs to the front door, gate, window and wheelchair ramp which the tenant carried out himself are likely to cause injury to persons or property or is otherwise serious and urgent.
For those reasons, I decline reimbursement of costs claimed by the tenant under section 45(1)(d) RTA.
I also decline the tenant’s claim for compensation of $2,640.00 for 44 hours of his time spent at the premises to supervise or observe maintenance work carried out by the landlord’s contractors during the tenancy.
The landlord has not asked the tenant to observe or supervise the work undertaken by their contractors. While the tenant is entitled to be at home while the work is being carried out, there is no requirement for his presence. The decision to be at home while maintenance work is being carried out lies with the tenant himself and this choice by the tenant does not mean that he will be compensated for his time in attendance.
The tenant’s claim for compensation of $300.00 for excessive power bills for July and August 2024 fails for lack of evidence. There is insufficient material before the Tribunal for objective comparison to be made on whether there has been excessive power use for those months, and if so, what is the cause.
I set out the relevant legal principles that I must address when dealing with complaints raised by the tenant regarding having to put up with the landlord carrying out numerous maintenance work while tenanting the premises for the last 19 years.
I reiterate that under section 45 RTA, a landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they applied to the premises.
A tenant has a corresponding duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs (see section 40(1)(d) RTA).
The landlord’s obligation is therefore to repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair, either from observing the property or notice from the tenant: “... the obligation of the landlord, under section 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.” (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010; see also Merwald Real Estate v Lanauze DC Auckland, MA151-89, 2 May 1989).
Compensation ought to be awarded for breach of the landlord’s obligations and where the other party has suffered a loss or inconvenience because of that breach.
It goes without saying that only if the landlord is found to in breach of their obligations under section 45 (as set out above) and the tenant has carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify and allow maintenance to be attended to, would an award of compensation be considered and made.
Where the tenant has not carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify or not allow maintenance to be attended to, no award of compensation will be made.
Where the tenant has notified the landlord and the landlord has carried out maintenance within a reasonable time, no award of compensation will be made.
Considering the specific instances of complaints raised by the tenant of items requiring attention throughout the tenancy, I find that the social housing landlord had carried out inspection and undertaken repairs to the complained items within a reasonable time. Consequently, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages of $40,000 for alleged failure under section 45 RTA.
I allow the tenant’s claim for compensation of $170 for repairs to his lawnmower due to the landlord’s contractors failing to remove scaffolding debris from the premises which damaged the blade of his lawnmower.
Pursuant to section 102(4)(b) RTA, I order the respondent to pay the applicant the filing fee paid for the application because the tenant has been partly successful in his claim. I also direct the suppression of the tenant’s name under the circumstances.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5230879 — Property damage at 397 Great South Road, Opaheke, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5230879 — Property damage at 397 Great South Road, Opaheke, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach their maintenance obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach their maintenance obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions