What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5242491 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,196.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 5242491?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5242491?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5242491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12215400-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5242491 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,196.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 5242491?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5242491?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5242491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12215400-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5242491 — State of repair

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,196.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The application for compensation and/or exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Booker represented the landlord.
I heard evidence from the parties and from a witness for the tenant, her former boarder.
In addition to the oral evidence, I have considered all the evidence placed before the Tribunal including photos, videos, and the documentary evidence both parties produced, even if I do not specifically refer to it. Background
The tenancy started on 25 June 2024. It ended on or about 8 April 2025 after the tenant gave notice to terminate the tenancy.
The tenancy was initially managed by another property management company. Kakariki Property Management Limited (Kakariki) only started managing the tenancy on 11 February 2025 at which point it became the landlord.
The landlord initially claimed 2 days’ rent from the tenant. But it made no application for rent or any other costs. Ms Booker confirmed today that no claim for rent will be made. Issues
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Is the tenant entitled to have her bond refunded? •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation for rubbish removal ($80.00)? •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation and/or exemplary damages for a failure by the landlord to maintain and repair the premises?
The tenant mentioned a request by the landlord to have the kitchen window frosted but that never happened. She also mentioned comments Ms Booker made to her about her son (which Ms Booker denies). I explained that those are not matters the Tribunal can address by way of orders. Events that have no consequence do not attract compensation, neither do hurt feelings. Relevant law
Section 22B(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides: If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party 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.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 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.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. Discussion

Is the tenant entitled to have her bond refunded?

The bond must be paid to the tenant in full because there is no landlord cross application for costs from the bond as required by section 22B(2) RTA.
Ms Booker confirmed that the landlord has not claimed any costs from the bond.
I have therefore made a bond order for the bond to be paid to the tenant now. Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation for rubbish removal ($80.00)? 1 [2020] NZDC 17667
The premises were in a block of 30 units, 29 of which used Council supplied rubbish bins.
The Auckland Council required a change to the bin management system and provided communal bins located in a designated gated area.
The tenant’s video evidence demonstrated where the bins were kept, and the kind of bins provided.
The landlord provided information to all the tenants about the change to the rubbish bin system and a location map showing where the bins were located.
The tenant said there were insufficient bins, and they were often full. She has claimed $80.00 for the rubbish removal cost she incurred.
Compensation follows a landlord breach. Here, there was no breach by the landlord. The change to the bin management system was a Council requirement. The tenant and all other tenants were notified of the change and advised of the kinds of bins that the Council would provide, their location, and when they would be collected.
The tenant could simply have placed her rubbish in the designated area, on the ground, if necessary, if the bins were full. I do not accept that the bins were hard to find. The location map provided to the tenant clearly showed where they were, and simple observation would have confirmed that.
I dismiss the tenant’s application for compensation arising from issues with the rubbish bins. Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation and/or exemplary damages for a failure by the landlord to maintain and repair the premises?
The tenant raised 2 repair issues. One was with the kitchen tap which she said just flowed like rain rather than a full flow. The second was her request to have window stays installed on the windows in the 2 nd floor bedroom which was to be used by her son who has autism.
The tenant said she relocated her son to the downstairs bedroom and her boarder used the 2 nd floor bedroom.
Regardless, the lack of window stays was a safety issue.
The difficulty for the tenant is this. Until 11 February 2025, the tenancy was managed by a different property management company which she has not named as a party. So, the Tribunal cannot make any order against that firm as the landlord.
Ms Booker produced evidence that Kakariki was informed of these repair issues on 17 February 2025. It arranged for a contractor to attend to do the repairs (which have since been completed). The tap has 2 functions, a rain flow and a full flow. It did not require repair as such. The window stays are now in place.
The landlord produced evidence that the tenant cancelled the contractor’s attendance to do the repairs. So, she contributed to the delay.
This claim could only have succeeded if the landlord had taken no action. However, the landlord did act by instructing a contractor to do the repairs. But for the tenant not being available the repairs would have been completed earlier than they were.
The delay between 17 February 2025 when this landlord became aware of the need to for repairs and the end of the tenancy on 8 April 2025 is not so great considering the tenant’s cancellation of the contractor’s planned attendance.
Possibly, the tenant might have had cause to seek compensation from the previous property management company (the previous landlord) for delayed repairs. But I do not find proved a claim for compensation against Kakariki based on the evidence produced.
For completeness, none of the matters raised by the tenant comprises a defined unlawful act by the landlord and therefore the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages. There was no failure to undertake repairs by this landlord, only a delay in part contributed to by the tenant. Even if there had been an unlawful act, the tenant would have had to prove that the landlord (Kakariki) acted with intent. The Tribunal would not have found that to be the case. The communications from the landlord to the tenant were professional, courteous, and acknowledged what was required to be done. Result
The bond will be paid to the tenant in full. The tenant’s application for compensation and/or exemplary damages for issues arising from the replacement rubbish bins and for the delayed repairs is dismissed. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenant sought name suppression. I make an order suppressing the tenant’s name as her application is successful in part – see section 95A RTA.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,196.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The application for compensation and/or exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Booker represented the landlord.
I heard evidence from the parties and from a witness for the tenant, her former boarder.
In addition to the oral evidence, I have considered all the evidence placed before the Tribunal including photos, videos, and the documentary evidence both parties produced, even if I do not specifically refer to it. Background
The tenancy started on 25 June 2024. It ended on or about 8 April 2025 after the tenant gave notice to terminate the tenancy.
The tenancy was initially managed by another property management company. Kakariki Property Management Limited (Kakariki) only started managing the tenancy on 11 February 2025 at which point it became the landlord.
The landlord initially claimed 2 days’ rent from the tenant. But it made no application for rent or any other costs. Ms Booker confirmed today that no claim for rent will be made. Issues
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Is the tenant entitled to have her bond refunded? •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation for rubbish removal ($80.00)? •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation and/or exemplary damages for a failure by the landlord to maintain and repair the premises?
The tenant mentioned a request by the landlord to have the kitchen window frosted but that never happened. She also mentioned comments Ms Booker made to her about her son (which Ms Booker denies). I explained that those are not matters the Tribunal can address by way of orders. Events that have no consequence do not attract compensation, neither do hurt feelings. Relevant law
Section 22B(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides: If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party 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.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 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.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. Discussion

Is the tenant entitled to have her bond refunded?

The bond must be paid to the tenant in full because there is no landlord cross application for costs from the bond as required by section 22B(2) RTA.
Ms Booker confirmed that the landlord has not claimed any costs from the bond.
I have therefore made a bond order for the bond to be paid to the tenant now. Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation for rubbish removal ($80.00)? 1 [2020] NZDC 17667
The premises were in a block of 30 units, 29 of which used Council supplied rubbish bins.
The Auckland Council required a change to the bin management system and provided communal bins located in a designated gated area.
The tenant’s video evidence demonstrated where the bins were kept, and the kind of bins provided.
The landlord provided information to all the tenants about the change to the rubbish bin system and a location map showing where the bins were located.
The tenant said there were insufficient bins, and they were often full. She has claimed $80.00 for the rubbish removal cost she incurred.
Compensation follows a landlord breach. Here, there was no breach by the landlord. The change to the bin management system was a Council requirement. The tenant and all other tenants were notified of the change and advised of the kinds of bins that the Council would provide, their location, and when they would be collected.
The tenant could simply have placed her rubbish in the designated area, on the ground, if necessary, if the bins were full. I do not accept that the bins were hard to find. The location map provided to the tenant clearly showed where they were, and simple observation would have confirmed that.
I dismiss the tenant’s application for compensation arising from issues with the rubbish bins. Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation and/or exemplary damages for a failure by the landlord to maintain and repair the premises?
The tenant raised 2 repair issues. One was with the kitchen tap which she said just flowed like rain rather than a full flow. The second was her request to have window stays installed on the windows in the 2 nd floor bedroom which was to be used by her son who has autism.
The tenant said she relocated her son to the downstairs bedroom and her boarder used the 2 nd floor bedroom.
Regardless, the lack of window stays was a safety issue.
The difficulty for the tenant is this. Until 11 February 2025, the tenancy was managed by a different property management company which she has not named as a party. So, the Tribunal cannot make any order against that firm as the landlord.
Ms Booker produced evidence that Kakariki was informed of these repair issues on 17 February 2025. It arranged for a contractor to attend to do the repairs (which have since been completed). The tap has 2 functions, a rain flow and a full flow. It did not require repair as such. The window stays are now in place.
The landlord produced evidence that the tenant cancelled the contractor’s attendance to do the repairs. So, she contributed to the delay.
This claim could only have succeeded if the landlord had taken no action. However, the landlord did act by instructing a contractor to do the repairs. But for the tenant not being available the repairs would have been completed earlier than they were.
The delay between 17 February 2025 when this landlord became aware of the need to for repairs and the end of the tenancy on 8 April 2025 is not so great considering the tenant’s cancellation of the contractor’s planned attendance.
Possibly, the tenant might have had cause to seek compensation from the previous property management company (the previous landlord) for delayed repairs. But I do not find proved a claim for compensation against Kakariki based on the evidence produced.
For completeness, none of the matters raised by the tenant comprises a defined unlawful act by the landlord and therefore the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages. There was no failure to undertake repairs by this landlord, only a delay in part contributed to by the tenant. Even if there had been an unlawful act, the tenant would have had to prove that the landlord (Kakariki) acted with intent. The Tribunal would not have found that to be the case. The communications from the landlord to the tenant were professional, courteous, and acknowledged what was required to be done. Result
The bond will be paid to the tenant in full. The tenant’s application for compensation and/or exemplary damages for issues arising from the replacement rubbish bins and for the delayed repairs is dismissed. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenant sought name suppression. I make an order suppressing the tenant’s name as her application is successful in part – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5242491 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5242491 — State of repair

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant entitled to have her bond refunded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant entitled to have her bond refunded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions