What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5242031 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 5242031?

Property Damage: $3,300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5242031?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5242031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12272360-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5242031 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 5242031?

Property Damage: $3,300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5242031?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5242031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12272360-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5242031 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5242031 — net $3,327.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$3,300.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,327.00
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,327.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5242031 — net $3,327.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$3,300.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,327.00
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,327.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
must pay immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Background

The adjournment order dated 6 June 2025 sets out some of the background to the tenants’ application. The tenants’ application seeks compensation / exemplary damages for failure to maintain and breach of quiet enjoyment.
The landlord filed a cross-application on 24 June. The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears and the cost of replacing curtains.
The second hearing took place in on 25 July 2025. Both parties attended the hearing. Tenants’ application Maintenance Law
Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. 1
This is not a guarantee that the property will not have defects or problems. It is an obligation on landlords to carry out repairs within a reasonable time of a problem being brought to their attention. 2
Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is an unlawful act. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 for this unlawful act.
The other type of monetary damages that the Tribunal can award is compensation. Issues
[The tenant/s] said that: a. The oven door did not close properly. They raised the issue with the Ms Hinds. Ms Hinds put some unsuitable and temporary latches on the sides of the oven, but took no other steps. b. The surface on the bath failed. Ms Hinds took no steps to remedy. c. The fridge stopped working. They notified Ms Hinds in September 2024. Ms Hinds did not repair or replace the fridge. d. Ms Hinds removed the letterbox and did not return it. e. Ms Hinds required them to clear the gutters and clean the solar panels, which they refused to do. f. On 16 February 2025 there was power outage that affected the bottom half of the house. They sent messages to Ms Hinds but got no reply. 1 Section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431
Ms Hinds’ response to these issues at the hearings was a bewildering mix of incompatible and unconvincing arguments. Ms Hinds said that: a. There was nothing wrong with the things that [Tenant 1] complained about. b. To the extent that there was anything wrong with those things, it was because the tenants damaged them. c. In any event, the tenants didn’t really need the fridge, oven, bath, and letterbox. d. Even though she had no responsibility to address these problems, she made heroic efforts to resolve them and to make the property more enjoyable for the tenants, consulting extensively with retailers, tradespeople, etc. Despite the best efforts of herself and this “team of people”, the tenants were still ungrateful and complaining.
There is no evidence of Ms Hinds making any attempts to address these issues, which are plainly maintenance issues and not tenant damage. Ms Hinds’ extensive consultation and investigation into repairs is unfortunately undocumented.
There is evidence (messages sent to the tenants) showing that Ms Hinds expected the tenants to sort the problems out themselves.
The fact that these relatively straightforward issues were not remedied during the period of the tenancy also supports the conclusion that Ms Hinds did not go to great lengths to address the repair issues that were brought to her attention, but rather she ignored her maintenance duty and expected the tenants to sort out the problems themselves.
The fridge serves as a good example of this. Ms Hinds said that: a. The fridge was not part of the tenanted premises, it was her own fridge that she allowed the tenants to use. b. The fridge was not broken, and it worked fine. c. The fridge didn’t work fine because the tenants left it out in the rain. d. She investigated repair of the fridge thoroughly (despite the fact that the fridge wasn’t broken and it wasn’t her responsibility to repair because it was a loan fridge only).
The reality is that: a. The tenants were not told at the beginning of the tenancy that the fridge wasn’t part of the premises and there is nothing in the written agreement to note this. b. The tenants sent Ms Hinds a message stating “Fridge is most likely broken [...] Going to have to look for a new fridge now”. Ms Hinds replied “Fridge is fixable. Look under sink. Plastic meat tray”. The tenants replied that there was no plastic tray under the sink. They asked for the phone number of “the people who fixed the fridge originally”. Ms Hinds replied “Get a tray from K Mart. It’s about 15cm x 30. You can look up fridge on line. Or talk to repair people at Harvey Norman. I am working now [Tenant 2].” c. There is no evidence of Ms Hinds taking any other action apart from telling the tenants that it is their problem.
Ms Hinds failed to meet her legal duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair in respect of the oven door, the fridge, the bath, and the letterbox.
The failure was intentional, and repeated. It is appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages.
In considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to: a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
The maximum award of exemplary damages for failure to maintain the premises is $7,200. The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one-third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or excusing factors in play. 3
In this instance: a. There were multiple, but relatively minor, maintenance issues that the landlord failed to attend to. b. Trying to deal with Ms Hinds about these issues was stressful, confusing, and frustrating for the tenants. c. There is a legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords meet their maintenance obligation. d. Ms Hinds remains unrepentant. She blamed and belittled her tenants rather than familiarising herself with her legal obligations as a landlord.
Having regard to these factors I will award exemplary damages of $3,300.00. 3 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781
In terms of the allegation that Ms Hinds asked the tenants to clear the gutters and clean the solar panels, my finding is that there is not enough evidence to prove this allegation.
Again, Ms Hinds’ response to this claim was confusing and inconsistent, arguing that she did not expect the tenants to clear the gutters (because her gardener, Toni, did that work) while at the same time criticising the tenants for not using a ‘gutter hook’ that she left at the property specifically for the purpose of clearing the gutters. Ms Hinds also said that far from asking the tenants to go onto the roof to clear the gutters she specifically told them not to go onto the roof because it would be unsafe. It is difficult to imagine why Ms Hinds would have the need to say this to the tenants, which casts some doubt on the credibility of her recollection.
However, there is nothing in writing and no independent evidence to support the tenants’ allegation, and therefore I find that it is not proven to the standard of “more likely than not”.
In terms of the power outage, [Tenant 1] said that: a. On the evening of 16 February 2025 the power went out unexpectedly in the bottom half of the house. b. They sent a WhatsApp message to Ms Hinds, which was a common way for them to communicate. c. There was no reply from Ms Hinds. They contacted a friend who is an electrician to get some advice. d. They sent a follow up WhatsApp message to Ms Hinds the next morning. e. There was no reply from Ms Hinds. The tenants addressed the problem themselves and got the power back on.
Ms Hinds said that she did not receive these messages. She objected to the tenants sorting out the problem themselves.
[Tenant 1] provided a screenshot of the WhatsApp messages. It is clear that Ms Hinds did view the messages at some point because: a. WhatsApp has a feature where it displays a blue ‘double tick’ next to a message if the recipient has viewed it. b. Ms Hinds sent further messages after [Tenant 1]’s messages.
It is understandable why Ms Hinds may not have seen [Tenant 1]’s initial message on 16 February, because it was sent around 10.30pm. However there is no reason why Ms Hinds failed to take any action, or even respond to [Tenant 1]’s messages, the next day. This seems to be a further example of Ms Hinds taking the view that any problems at the property are the tenants’ problems. Interference with peace, comfort, and privacy Law
Landlords must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of their tenants. 4
A breach of this duty, in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is an unlawful act. 5 Exemplary damages of up to $3,000 can apply.
Harassment means “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire or exhaust”. Harassment is a pattern of behaviour directed towards another person. 6 Issues
The tenants raised three specific incidents under this heading: a. On 5 May 2025, Ms Hinds came to the property to turn off the light in the shed and to remove some items from the shed with the assistance of her gardener, Toni. [Tenant 1] said that she was out when Ms Hinds arrived. When she got home Ms Hinds confronted her about giving out her name as a reference. [Tenant 1] said that Ms Hinds yelled at her. b. On 11 May 2025, an older man (unknown to [Tenant 1]) arrived at the property. Ms Hinds then arrived. [Tenant 1] was inside the house. Ms Hinds knocked loudly on a side door. She could see [Tenant 1] inside and began pointing and gesticulating, demanding that [Tenant 1] talk to her. [Tenant 1] declined, and stayed inside. She rang the police. Ms Hinds then pushed on the door, attempting to enter. c. On the evening of 20 May 2025, Ms Hinds sent “disturbing messages” relating to power.
Ms Hinds said that: a. She was at the property on 5 May. She did speak to [Tenant 1] about using her name as a reference and she did say to [Tenant 1] “you don’t know your rights”, but she did not yell, and she was not confrontational. b. She was at the property on 11 May. In her view, the tenancy had ended, and the tenants should have left on 3 May 2025. She did tap on the side door to get [Tenant 1]’s attention, but she did not attempt to force her way in and there was no need for [Tenant 1] to ring the police. 4 Section 38(2) RTA 5 Section 38(3) RTA 6 McDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019—1524 District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2020)
I have no independent evidence about what happened on 5 May and 11 May. The only evidence that is available to me is the differing recollections of Ms Hinds and [The tenant/s].
I will note that Ms Hinds’ view that the tenancy ended on 3 May is entirely wrong and unjustified (as discussed below in the context of Ms Hinds’ claim for rent arrears).
By May, the relationship between the landlord and tenants had well and truly broken down, and any interactions between them were likely to be difficult. It would have been wise for Ms Hinds to stay away from the property unless absolutely necessary, knowing that the tenants had (lawfully) given notice and that the tenancy was going to end on 25 May.
However, I also acknowledge that a landlord is legally entitled to go to the tenanted premises during the tenancy on genuine landlord business. Just going to the property (for a legitimate purpose) does not constitute an unreasonable interference with the tenant’s peace comfort and privacy, even if the landlord and tenant are not on good terms.
There is not enough evidence to establish clearly what happened on 5 May and 11 May. Although I have a suspicion that Ms Hinds may have acted and spoken inappropriately out of frustration with the tenants, there is not enough evidence to support an award of exemplary damages or compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment.
At 8.19pm on 20 May 2025, Ms Hinds sent [Tenant 1] a message stating: I have received notification that your power bill is over due. Did you use my name as a reference to gain a power account? [Tenant 1] replied: I am in great credit with power bill. I’m confused what you are meaning? You haven’t been used as a reference.
At the hearing I asked Ms Hinds what prompted her message on 20 May 2025. Ms Hinds’ response was puzzling. She talked about concerns about power that came up in February 2025, and concerns about the tenants’ initial connection with power at the property in May 2024. Ms Hinds was strangely “hung up” on the fact that the tenants changed power suppliers, which is frankly not her business. None of which explains why Ms Hinds decided to send the above message at 8.19pm on 20 May 2025.
In isolation this incident, although mildly disturbing for the tenants, could be written off as a misunderstanding.
However this is only one of several messages that Ms Hinds sent near the end of the tenancy that were, at best, muddled, ill-conceived, incorrect, and unfortunate. To give some other examples: a. Ms Hinds continued to insist that this was a fixed term tenancy (it was not) and that it ended on a date that Ms Hinds seemingly changed at whim – sometimes 2 May, sometimes 3 May, sometimes 5 May, and sometimes 28 April. b. After [Tenant 1] contacted the police on 11 May, Ms Hinds sent a message stating “The board feels it must inform your employer”. c. Ms Hinds bizarrely continued to refer to a “board” or “board of trustees”, and insist that the tenants must communicate with the Sue Wilkens Family Trust. Family trusts have trustees, but not ‘boards of trustees’ – a term that is used in the context of non-profits, universities, and similar large-scale organisations. In any event, there is only one person named as landlord in the tenancy agreement – Susan Hinds. Ms Hinds is the landlord. d. In one message Ms Hinds told [Tenant 1] “we are concerned about your ability to look after your baby safely”.
These messages were sent at a difficult and stressful time for both the landlord and the tenants. Tensions were high.
I will not make an award of compensation or exemplary damages, but I will give a warning to Ms Hinds that her understanding of her rights and obligations as a landlord, and her approach to managing tenancies, is currently inadequate. She must either upskill quickly, or delegate management of any future tenancies to a professional property manager. Landlord application Rent arrears
Ms Hinds seeks rent arrears of $441.57.
Ms Hinds’ calculation of arrears is premised on a tenancy start date of 3 May 2024.
The tenancy agreement records that the start date of the tenancy was 10 May 2024.
Ms Hinds seeks rent from 3 May on the grounds that the tenants moved in early.
The tenants did not move in early.
With permission, they accessed the property before 10 May to move in some larger items of furniture. However, they did not begin living at this property until 10 May.
Moving in some items with consent does amount to bringing the tenancy start date forward. Ms Hinds (or her agent) was free to decline the request to move in furniture before the start of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 10 May 2024. Ms Hinds calculation of rent is incorrect. There are no rent arrears. Curtain
Ms Hinds said that she had thermal curtains (dark red) fitted in the lounge before the start of the tenancy.
At the end of the tenancy, one of the curtains was missing and a lesser quality grey curtain was in its place.
[Tenant 1] said that she did not swap the curtain and that the grey curtain was there when she moved in.
The landlord has the burden of proof to establish that loss / damage occurred during the period of the tenancy.
Ms Hinds provided a photograph of the dark red curtain over this opening, and confirmation from her installer that the curtains were hung before the start of this tenancy.
However [Tenant 1] provided a date and timestamped photograph, taken at
45pm on 10 May 2024, the very first day of the tenancy, which shows the grey curtain in the background.
My finding is that is extremely unlikely that [Tenant 1] would have taken down and replaced just this curtain in the lounge on the very first day of the tenancy. As [Tenant 1] noted, she had a newborn baby, the curtains are very high, and the tiled floor in front of the curtains is not particularly even or stable.
It is noted that Ms Hinds’ gardener, Toni, occupied the house as a ‘housesitter’ up until [The tenant/s] moved in.
It is not proven that the tenants took this curtain, and the claim is dismissed. Bond, filing fee, name suppression
The tenants were partly successful in their application. I will award the tenants the filing fee of $27.00 7 .
The tenants sought name suppression. I am satisfied that the tenants were substantially successful in the proceedings. 8 Name suppression is granted to the tenants. 7 Section 102(4)(b) RTA 8 section 95A(1) RTA
The tenancy has ended. Nothing is owed to the landlord. The bond will be released to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5242031 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5242031 — 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