What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5242572 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,960.00 (5072854-006) to [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5242572?

Cleaning: $372.60 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,386.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5242572?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5242572?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12320776-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5242572 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,960.00 (5072854-006) to [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5242572?

Cleaning: $372.60 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,386.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5242572?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5242572?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12320776-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 68, 305 Evans Bay Parade, Hataitai, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5242572 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5242572 — net $5,513.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$372.60		Cleaning
Exemplary damages – quiet enjoyment		$3,000.00	Exemplary damages – quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages – owners breach of s48(3		$1,500.00	Exemplary damages – owners breach of s48(3
Compensation – rent		$1,386.00	Compensation – rent
Total award	$372.60	$5,886.00
Net award		$5,513.40
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$5,513.40

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,960.00 (5072854-006) to [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.
Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Dilip Naik & Kaksha Naik - D & K Naik Family Trust is to pay $5513.40 to [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background
Ms Northmore, Mr Gallagher, Mr McFetridge and Mr Springgay moved into the tenancy on 26 January 2024. The tenancy is a five bedroom townhouse, located on a harbourside site at Evans Bay Parade. Their intention was to sublet the fifth, unoccupied, bedroom.
During the process leading up to the start of the lease the landlord had disclosed that there was a structural issue with the balconies at the tenancy, caused by a water damage issue, and these were not to be used. The tenants requested information as to whether or not the water damage affected any other parts of the tenancy, and whether it was healthy homes compliant. The landlord indicated that no other parts of the tenancy were affected and it was healthy homes compliant.
Upon moving and it was discovered that the bedroom adjacent to a balcony was uncarpeted. Soon after, during rain, water began to leak onto flooring in the corner adjacent to the balcony. The landlord was notified of this on 29 January 2024.
On 5 February 2024, the landlord’s indicated that the bedroom was to be re- carpeted when the leak was resolved and that tradesmen would assess the leak.
On 13 February 2024, the tenants issued a 14 day notice to remedy. The landlord responded indicating that the roofer retained had a mechanical problem with his scissor lift and so would not be able to assess for approximately two weeks.
On 18 March 2024, a 20% rent reduction was requested, backdated to the start of the tenancy. This was approved on 4 April 2024.
It eventuated that the leak was caused by an issue with the cladding and roofing juncture, and that the townhouse and the development in which it is located were known “leakers”. The previous tenants have indicated that the leak was present during their period of tenancy.
The leak and affected the framing requiring the wall cavity to be opened up and the framing to be treated. The repairs to the room were eventually finished on 11 November 2024. The room was redecorated on the carpet replaced on 2 December 2024, with the full rent resuming from 6 December 2024.
It appears that the work to find and remediate the leak, and repair the water damage it caused, were highly disruptive to the tenants. The tenants report that tradesmen would often show up without notice.
Since the tenancy finished the landlord has refused to release the tenant’s bond, citing that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean condition. This application is to recover those cleaning costs.
The tenants counterclaim for: a. $1,386, being 20% of the rent for seven weeks between 6 December 2024 and the end of the tenancy, when they say they were unable to fill the newly repaired bedroom due to the time of the year. b. $10,500 exemplary damages for breaches of their quiet enjoyment. This is based on 11 separate instances when tradesmen showed up without notice, and an instance when late in the tenancy the owner made an unannounced visit to show the tendency to prospective buyers. Quiet enjoyment
Ms Northmore, Mr Gallagher, Mr McFetridge and Mr Springgay claim the landlord has breached their quiet enjoyment.
A landlord must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenants have provided texts, and emails, showing the 11 instances on which contractors visited with less than 24 hours notice. On several of these occasions the contractors were asked to give more notice, however this did not change the pattern. On several occasions contractors arrived with no notice. On one occasion a key was left out and the contractor failed to return the key, leaving one of the tenants without a key to her own home. The tenants describe how unsettling this was, with one instance in particular standing out. This occurred on 3 April 2024, and involved Ms Northmore, who is doing her postgraduate marine biology studies, returning from doing fieldwork snorkelling on the adjacent coastline. She returned to the tenancy wearing a swimsuit to find tradesmen in the house with no notice.
On 30 January 2025, the owner visited the flat for a showing, with no notice. The tenant’s allowed entry, but for one of the rooms where one of them was showering.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act. The landlord had a contractual relationship with the contractors who did the work, the landlord could have and should have stipulated to those contractors that notice was to be given before entry was to occur. I am unsure whether this occurred however I note that the landlord was notified by the tenants of the contractors’ failures to give notice. Moreover, the owner’s visit on 30 January 2025 was a direct contravention of S 48 (3) which requires “prior consent” before a showing is to occur. 1 A breach of this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3000.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.
I find that there was a repeated pattern of entry by tradesmen which was highly unsettling for the tenants. I am unaware of what the landlord’s intention and failing to place conditions around the tradesmen giving notice of entry but have no doubt that the landlord knew of the repeated failures to give notice, and by failing to take action, permitted this to occur. The owner failed to seek prior consent before entering. Given the history of the previous year of the tenancy, the owner knew or should have known that this action would be unsettling for the tenants.
I find that the tenants were affected by these events, occurring as they did in the context of living in a tenancy which had ongoing investigation or repair works for virtually its entire term.
The tenants have sought a payment of exemplary damages for each instance when there was a failure to give notice. The courts have ruled that only one payment of exemplary damages me be awarded per breach. 2
In this instance, taking note of the multiple breaches, the prolonged period over which they occurred, and the context referred to above, I award the maximum exemplary damages of $3000, for the 11 failures of trades to give notice. Given the context I award $1500 for the owners breach of S 48 (3). The increased rent
The tenants claims that the landlord should refund the final seven weeks of rent paid totalling $1,386. The rent reduction which had been applied from the start of the tenancy (albeit backdated from 18 March 2024) for the loss of amenity due to the inability to sublet or otherwise use the bedroom in question was lifted when the bedroom became usable. However, the tenants say that this occurred with only seven weeks left on the lease, and at the quietest period of the year. This time of year is quiet in the Wellington rental market as it is outside of the 1 See Lieven and Grieve v Bowles, Lipski and Cholmondeley-Smith [2020] NZDC 17768 2 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583, tertiary term. The tenants are graduate students, and so the market of prospective tenants was almost non-existent.
I note that: a. the tenancy was a fixed term tenancy with seven weeks left to run on its term; b. the room had been unable to be occupied for 10 months when the full rent was resumed; c. the landlord is an experienced property manager, and so would have been aware of the seasonal status of the rental market in early December; d. the photos of the damaged part of the bedroom with the gib linings removed shows blackened water damaged framing, demonstrate the leak had been ongoing for longer than the lease had been on foot; and e. it appears likely that the landlord was aware of the ongoing leak, which was confirmed by the previous tenants, and by the fact that the real estate portion of the landlord’s business had handled the sale and purchase of the tenancy.
The landlord knew, or should have known, that the tenants would struggle to sublet the bedroom in the short period of time left on the lease. While the amenity of the bedroom had been restored when the rent was increased, that utility was significantly affected by the extended period of time during which the bedroom had been unable to be occupied. The landlord has blamed tradespeople, the difficult process of finding and remediating leaks, and even the tenants’ failure to respond to an email for the delays. However, I do not doubt that had the landlord disclosed the issues with the tenancy from the outset when specifically asked about the leak, the tenants would not have chosen to enter into the lease.
I note that under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. A breach of this obligation may sound in exemplary damages to a maximum of $7,200.00. The tenants have not claimed for exemplary damages, had they done so I would have made an award. Viewing the substantial merits and justice of the case 3 the decision to recur to the full rent with less than two months to run on the lease, and at a low period in the market was unfair and unjust, particularly when this timing occurred due to circumstances in the control of the landlord and outside the control of the tenants.
Therefore, I award the $1,386 sought by the tenants. Cleaning 3 See S 85(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord seeks $372.60, which was the cost of the cleaning.
Viewing the pre-tenancy and post tenancy photos, I note that tenancy was left in a reasonably dusty state throughout. Viewing the instructions to the cleaner the cost sought do relate to the level of cleaning justified by its condition.
I award the landlord $372.60.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5242572 — net $5,513.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$372.60		Cleaning
Exemplary damages – quiet enjoyment		$3,000.00	Exemplary damages – quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages – owners breach of s48(3		$1,500.00	Exemplary damages – owners breach of s48(3
Compensation – rent		$1,386.00	Compensation – rent
Total award	$372.60	$5,886.00
Net award		$5,513.40
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$5,513.40

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,960.00 (5072854-006) to [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.
Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Dilip Naik & Kaksha Naik - D & K Naik Family Trust is to pay $5513.40 to [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background
Ms Northmore, Mr Gallagher, Mr McFetridge and Mr Springgay moved into the tenancy on 26 January 2024. The tenancy is a five bedroom townhouse, located on a harbourside site at Evans Bay Parade. Their intention was to sublet the fifth, unoccupied, bedroom.
During the process leading up to the start of the lease the landlord had disclosed that there was a structural issue with the balconies at the tenancy, caused by a water damage issue, and these were not to be used. The tenants requested information as to whether or not the water damage affected any other parts of the tenancy, and whether it was healthy homes compliant. The landlord indicated that no other parts of the tenancy were affected and it was healthy homes compliant.
Upon moving and it was discovered that the bedroom adjacent to a balcony was uncarpeted. Soon after, during rain, water began to leak onto flooring in the corner adjacent to the balcony. The landlord was notified of this on 29 January 2024.
On 5 February 2024, the landlord’s indicated that the bedroom was to be re- carpeted when the leak was resolved and that tradesmen would assess the leak.
On 13 February 2024, the tenants issued a 14 day notice to remedy. The landlord responded indicating that the roofer retained had a mechanical problem with his scissor lift and so would not be able to assess for approximately two weeks.
On 18 March 2024, a 20% rent reduction was requested, backdated to the start of the tenancy. This was approved on 4 April 2024.
It eventuated that the leak was caused by an issue with the cladding and roofing juncture, and that the townhouse and the development in which it is located were known “leakers”. The previous tenants have indicated that the leak was present during their period of tenancy.
The leak and affected the framing requiring the wall cavity to be opened up and the framing to be treated. The repairs to the room were eventually finished on 11 November 2024. The room was redecorated on the carpet replaced on 2 December 2024, with the full rent resuming from 6 December 2024.
It appears that the work to find and remediate the leak, and repair the water damage it caused, were highly disruptive to the tenants. The tenants report that tradesmen would often show up without notice.
Since the tenancy finished the landlord has refused to release the tenant’s bond, citing that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean condition. This application is to recover those cleaning costs.
The tenants counterclaim for: a. $1,386, being 20% of the rent for seven weeks between 6 December 2024 and the end of the tenancy, when they say they were unable to fill the newly repaired bedroom due to the time of the year. b. $10,500 exemplary damages for breaches of their quiet enjoyment. This is based on 11 separate instances when tradesmen showed up without notice, and an instance when late in the tenancy the owner made an unannounced visit to show the tendency to prospective buyers. Quiet enjoyment
Ms Northmore, Mr Gallagher, Mr McFetridge and Mr Springgay claim the landlord has breached their quiet enjoyment.
A landlord must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenants have provided texts, and emails, showing the 11 instances on which contractors visited with less than 24 hours notice. On several of these occasions the contractors were asked to give more notice, however this did not change the pattern. On several occasions contractors arrived with no notice. On one occasion a key was left out and the contractor failed to return the key, leaving one of the tenants without a key to her own home. The tenants describe how unsettling this was, with one instance in particular standing out. This occurred on 3 April 2024, and involved Ms Northmore, who is doing her postgraduate marine biology studies, returning from doing fieldwork snorkelling on the adjacent coastline. She returned to the tenancy wearing a swimsuit to find tradesmen in the house with no notice.
On 30 January 2025, the owner visited the flat for a showing, with no notice. The tenant’s allowed entry, but for one of the rooms where one of them was showering.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act. The landlord had a contractual relationship with the contractors who did the work, the landlord could have and should have stipulated to those contractors that notice was to be given before entry was to occur. I am unsure whether this occurred however I note that the landlord was notified by the tenants of the contractors’ failures to give notice. Moreover, the owner’s visit on 30 January 2025 was a direct contravention of S 48 (3) which requires “prior consent” before a showing is to occur. 1 A breach of this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3000.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.
I find that there was a repeated pattern of entry by tradesmen which was highly unsettling for the tenants. I am unaware of what the landlord’s intention and failing to place conditions around the tradesmen giving notice of entry but have no doubt that the landlord knew of the repeated failures to give notice, and by failing to take action, permitted this to occur. The owner failed to seek prior consent before entering. Given the history of the previous year of the tenancy, the owner knew or should have known that this action would be unsettling for the tenants.
I find that the tenants were affected by these events, occurring as they did in the context of living in a tenancy which had ongoing investigation or repair works for virtually its entire term.
The tenants have sought a payment of exemplary damages for each instance when there was a failure to give notice. The courts have ruled that only one payment of exemplary damages me be awarded per breach. 2
In this instance, taking note of the multiple breaches, the prolonged period over which they occurred, and the context referred to above, I award the maximum exemplary damages of $3000, for the 11 failures of trades to give notice. Given the context I award $1500 for the owners breach of S 48 (3). The increased rent
The tenants claims that the landlord should refund the final seven weeks of rent paid totalling $1,386. The rent reduction which had been applied from the start of the tenancy (albeit backdated from 18 March 2024) for the loss of amenity due to the inability to sublet or otherwise use the bedroom in question was lifted when the bedroom became usable. However, the tenants say that this occurred with only seven weeks left on the lease, and at the quietest period of the year. This time of year is quiet in the Wellington rental market as it is outside of the 1 See Lieven and Grieve v Bowles, Lipski and Cholmondeley-Smith [2020] NZDC 17768 2 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583, tertiary term. The tenants are graduate students, and so the market of prospective tenants was almost non-existent.
I note that: a. the tenancy was a fixed term tenancy with seven weeks left to run on its term; b. the room had been unable to be occupied for 10 months when the full rent was resumed; c. the landlord is an experienced property manager, and so would have been aware of the seasonal status of the rental market in early December; d. the photos of the damaged part of the bedroom with the gib linings removed shows blackened water damaged framing, demonstrate the leak had been ongoing for longer than the lease had been on foot; and e. it appears likely that the landlord was aware of the ongoing leak, which was confirmed by the previous tenants, and by the fact that the real estate portion of the landlord’s business had handled the sale and purchase of the tenancy.
The landlord knew, or should have known, that the tenants would struggle to sublet the bedroom in the short period of time left on the lease. While the amenity of the bedroom had been restored when the rent was increased, that utility was significantly affected by the extended period of time during which the bedroom had been unable to be occupied. The landlord has blamed tradespeople, the difficult process of finding and remediating leaks, and even the tenants’ failure to respond to an email for the delays. However, I do not doubt that had the landlord disclosed the issues with the tenancy from the outset when specifically asked about the leak, the tenants would not have chosen to enter into the lease.
I note that under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. A breach of this obligation may sound in exemplary damages to a maximum of $7,200.00. The tenants have not claimed for exemplary damages, had they done so I would have made an award. Viewing the substantial merits and justice of the case 3 the decision to recur to the full rent with less than two months to run on the lease, and at a low period in the market was unfair and unjust, particularly when this timing occurred due to circumstances in the control of the landlord and outside the control of the tenants.
Therefore, I award the $1,386 sought by the tenants. Cleaning 3 See S 85(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord seeks $372.60, which was the cost of the cleaning.
Viewing the pre-tenancy and post tenancy photos, I note that tenancy was left in a reasonably dusty state throughout. Viewing the instructions to the cleaner the cost sought do relate to the level of cleaning justified by its condition.
I award the landlord $372.60.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5242572 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 68, 305 Evans Bay Parade, Hataitai, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5242572 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 68, 305 Evans Bay Parade, Hataitai, Wellington

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions