What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5272467 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 5272467?

Cleaning: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Engineer'S Report: $2,265.50 awarded to tenant; Compensation: unlawful residential p…: $4,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Lawn Reinstatement: $1,420.00 awarded to landlord; French Doors: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5272467?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5272467?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12921384-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5272467 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 5272467?

Cleaning: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Engineer'S Report: $2,265.50 awarded to tenant; Compensation: unlawful residential p…: $4,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Lawn Reinstatement: $1,420.00 awarded to landlord; French Doors: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5272467?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5272467?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12921384-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

20 Wheturangi Road, Greenlane, Auckland 1051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5272467 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5272467 — net $7,988.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lawn reinstatement	$1,420.00		Lawn reinstatement
Carpet cleaning	$210.00		Carpet cleaning
Repairs: French doors	$100.00		Repairs: French doors
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge bond		$250.00	failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: requiring security in excess of bond		$250.00	requiring security in excess of bond
Compensation: unlawful residential premises		$4,200.00	50. Pursuant to section 78A(4) of the Act, I also order the landlord to repay $4,200.00 (7 weeks’ rent) for the period when the premises were unlawful.
Compensation: engineer's report		$2,265.50	engineer's report
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment		$450.00	breach of quiet enjoyment
Refund of bond not lodged		$2,276.00	Refund of bond not lodged
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,730.00	$9,718.50
Net award		$7,988.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$7,988.50

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5272467 — net $7,988.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lawn reinstatement	$1,420.00		Lawn reinstatement
Carpet cleaning	$210.00		Carpet cleaning
Repairs: French doors	$100.00		Repairs: French doors
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge bond		$250.00	failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: requiring security in excess of bond		$250.00	requiring security in excess of bond
Compensation: unlawful residential premises		$4,200.00	50. Pursuant to section 78A(4) of the Act, I also order the landlord to repay $4,200.00 (7 weeks’ rent) for the period when the premises were unlawful.
Compensation: engineer's report		$2,265.50	engineer's report
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment		$450.00	breach of quiet enjoyment
Refund of bond not lodged		$2,276.00	Refund of bond not lodged
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,730.00	$9,718.50
Net award		$7,988.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$7,988.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Deborah Jenvey aka Deborah Westgate must pay [The tenant/s] $7,988.50 by 5pm on Friday 30 January 2026, calculated as shown in the table below.
It is declared that [The tenant/s] has no liability to the landlord for rent arrears to the end of the tenancy and that the premises are unlawful residential premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 6 November and 11 December 2025. The landlord was represented by the current owner, who is her son.
On 24 May 2025, the tenant applied to the Tribunal for refund of the bond, work orders, compensation and exemplary damages.
On 26 June 2025, the landlord applied to the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy for rent arrears. The landlord was permitted to amend her claim to include vacated compensation.
The Tribunal made interim orders at a case conference on 11 August 2025, including an order requiring the tenant to pay the rent until the next hearing. The tenant vacated on 25 August 2025. Background
On 14 December 2012 ownership of the property was transferred from the landlord to the current owner. The property comprises a main house, a tiny house, a garage, an outdoor laundry, and a “cottage” where the tenant lived.
On 30 October 2021 the landlord and the tenant signed a flat/house sharing agreement for the cottage from 12 November 2021 for one year at a weekly rent of $569.00. A bond of $2,276.00 was required and paid. The agreement provided for water and gas to be paid by the landlord. Permission was given for one dog.
The flat/house sharing agreement included the handwritten words, in capitals, “You are tenants” below the title. This had been added by the landlord. The owner was named as a party to the flat/house sharing agreement but did not sign the document.
On 31 March 2023 the owner (as landlord) and the landlord (as tenant) signed a residential tenancy agreement for the property, creating a periodic tenancy from 1 April 2023. The agreement refers to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and includes an “insulation disclosure statement”. Jurisdiction and Contracting Out
The tenant lived in a self-contained “cottage” on site and did not share internal living space with anyone from the main house or with the landlord. The cottage is a detached building with its own kitchen, living area, bedroom, and bathroom. The main house comprises five self-contained units, an outdoor laundry, and a driveway. The cottage only shared the driveway and laundry facilities with the main house.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) applies to every tenancy for residential purposes, except as specifically provided. This was a “tenancy” or “residential premises” as defined in section 2 of the Act. None of the exceptions in section 5 apply. I find that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the dispute.
The tenant said the landlord had unlawfully attempted to contract out of the Act, contrary to section 137. The landlord said she genuinely believed the premises were not caught by the Act, because a flat/house sharing agreement had been used. This was also the position which the owner initially maintained in correspondence with the tenant when disputes arose.
The landlord’s view might appear difficult to reconcile with the addition of the words “You are tenants” on the agreement. These words were added in response to the tenant querying why a flat/house sharing agreement was being used which did not identify them as tenants. I am prepared to accept that the landlord did not have a clear understanding about when the Act applies. The use of a flat share agreement and the addition of the words “You are tenants” is contradictory but probably reflects a failure to appreciate the difference between a flatmate and a tenant.
I am not satisfied that the landlord (or the owner) intentionally tried to avoid the application of the Act. Tenant’s Application Failure to Lodge Bond
The tenant says he paid a four-week bond on 2 November 2021, but the landlord did not lodge the bond at the Bond Centre.
The landlord said the bond was not lodged because they believed the tenancy did not fall under the Act. While the landlord’s lack of understanding can be accepted, the landlord cannot rely on ignorance of the law as an excuse.
Section 19 of the Act required the bond to be lodged within 23 working days of receipt. It was an “unlawful act” not to do so, for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
The landlord and owner said they would lodge the bond if the Tribunal held that the Act applied. The Tribunal indicated (at the case conference on 11 August 2025) that this was probably a residential tenancy. The bond has not been lodged during the proceeding.
I find that the landlord intentionally failed to lodge the bond, in the sense that the landlord decided the bond did not need to be lodged because of the use of a flat/house sharing agreement. I also consider that it would be just to award exemplary damages, because landlords should be deterred from using flat/house sharing agreements when the landlord is not actually sharing the premises with a flatmate.
After considering the factors in section 109(3) of the Act, I find that an award of $250.00 is appropriate (the maximum is $1,500.00). The award is deliberately set at a low level. While I consider exemplary damages are justified, I am not persuaded that the landlord set out to avoid her obligations. It is not established that the tenant has suffered significant prejudice from the non-lodgement. Rent in Advance
The tenant paid four weeks’ rent in advance at the start of the tenancy. He claimed reimbursement of the “unlawfully held rent” and exemplary damages.
The landlord said the tenant paid four weeks in advance when he moved in, as per the flat share agreement. When the tenant complained that this was illegal, the landlord reduced the amount to two weeks in June 2025. The landlord also pointed out that the tenant was in rent arrears during the tenancy.
Section 23 of the Act provides that landlords must not require more than two weeks of rent in advance. A contravention of this requirement is an unlawful act. The tenant says the landlord disregarded his advanced payments and demanded new rent payments on various occasions.
This breach is similar in nature to the failure to lodge the bond: it derives from the landlord’s genuine but mistaken belief that the Act did not apply. What appears to have occurred is that the landlord required the tenant to always be four weeks in advance with his rent: the landlord was not requiring the tenant to pay four weeks of rent in advance each week but to maintain a credit balance. In effect, the landlord was asking the tenant to maintain security for his obligations in the form of four weeks rent plus the bond. However, in my view this was a breach of section 18 and/or section 18A of the Act.
I am unable to identify any “unlawfully held rent” that needs to be reimbursed. I find that the landlord intentionally required payment of rent in advance or security of more than the permitted the bond, contrary to the Act. For the same reasons as before, I set exemplary damages at a low level. The landlord is not to be punished excessively for her mistaken view that the Act did not apply. I find it would be just to award exemplary damages of $250.00. Rent Records
The tenant said he requested a copy of the rent ledger covering the period from the start of his tenancy on 25 May 2025. Although a rent ledger was later provided, it did not comply with the Act. The alleged deficiencies included recording rent as due and paid despite being unlawfully retained in advance and rent increases that did not comply with statutory requirements.
The tenant submitted that section 29 of the Act required the landlord to provide a written statement of the rent record on request. The landlord said they asked the tenant for any discrepancies with their rent records and provided a rent summary.
Section 29(3) of the Act provides that the landlord must give a written statement of the period to which a rent payment relates. The landlord did provide a rent summary, although it is not the easiest document to understand and did not use the Tenancy Services template. It includes a column for the “advance required” of four weeks’ rent ($2,276.00). The rent summary identifies missed rent payments and does correlate rental periods with rent payments. I am not satisfied that there has been a breach of section 29. Rent Increase
The tenant said the landlord increased the weekly rent from $569.00 to $600.00 by text on 2 September 2024, without issuing the required notice under section 24 of the Act. The tenant says he paid the increased amount for 31 weeks and was overcharged rent in the sum of $934.00.
The landlord said the tenant agreed to pay the rent increase (see the tenant’s text dated 2 September 2024). The landlord had told the tenant that if he wanted to stay and use the premises for his new dog business, the rent would be increased to $600.00, which was the amount the tenant was receiving from WINZ.
Section 24 of the Act requires written notice to be given of a rent increase. The notice must specify the amount of the increased rent and the day it becomes payable (which must be not less than 60 days after the date of the notice).
Section 24 is not a mandatory provision for increasing the rent: the rent payable “may be increased” by the landlord using the mechanism it provides. The parties can still agree to increase (or reduce) the rent. There was a period in June/July 2025 when the rent was reduced by agreement to $480.00 while maintenance work was being performed.
The tenant said he only agreed to the rent increase because he did not want to be made homeless. Nevertheless, I find that the rent was increased by agreement. The tenant paid the increased rent. I am not satisfied that there has been a breach of the Act. Unlawful Residential Premises
The tenant said the owner and the landlord constructed a cottage at the property without a building consent. The tenant submitted that this was a breach of the Building Act 2004 which rendered the premises unlawful under section 78A of the Act. The tenant sought a declaration of unlawfulness, a rent refund of 85% in the sum of $90,865.00, exemplary damages, and a restraining order.
The landlord admitted that the property does not have a building consent. The landlord said the cottage had already been constructed when the property was purchased and was renovated for one of their relatives to live in. The landlord suggested that the tenant, as a builder, would have understood it was not consented and the implications of this (see the owner’s email dated 4 June 2025: “From the outset, you were made aware that the dwelling you occupy is an unconsented, self-contained cottage at the rear of the property”). The landlord said she told the tenant’s ex-partner, who was also living there initially, that it was unconsented.
Section 78A provides that premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) of the Act.
Section 45(1)(c) requires the landlord to comply with building legislation applying to the premises. This includes section 40 of the Building Act 2004, which provides that building work must not be performed except in accordance with a building consent. Contravention of this requirement is a criminal offence.
I find that the premises are unlawful residential premises pursuant to section 78A(1) of the Act. The cottage was constructed and renovated without a building consent for residential occupation. The landlord caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by renting the cottage for residential purposes without the necessary consent.
In terms of remedies, the Tribunal may make an order for the refund of all of the rent or some portion of it (section 78A(4)). The Tribunal has a wide discretion to fashion an appropriate remedy in all the circumstances. I will address the issue of remedies below in the context of the Tribunal’s findings about the cottage’s condition. The effects of the regulatory breach are best assessed alongside this evidence. Failure to Maintain
The tenant claimed that the cottage had serious defects, including “makeshift” timber foundations, a rotten deck, missing soffits, an uncertified and leaking LPG installation, no smoke alarms, inadequate heating, insulation and ventilation, and issues with storm water. The tenant claimed a declaration of breach, exemplary damages, reimbursement of LPG costs ($455.87) and a restraining order.
The tenant provided a report from a consulting engineer dated 10 July 2025 who performed a structural assessment. The report is signed, and I understood was in final draft form. The report found, inter alia: • The subfloor support under the gable area was non-compliant with NZS 3604. The pile configuration was structurally inadequate. • There was a lack of subfloor lateral bracing in the lean-to area. This was considered a structural safety concern. • There was no subfloor insulation. • There was no soffit lining below rafters and roof framing elements were vulnerable to weather. • The roof runoff discharged directly to the ground near the boundary and was non-compliant. • There were concerns about fire safety and potential height-to-boundary issues due to the building’s proximity to the boundary.
The engineer advised that the structure would not be eligible for retrospective building consent and substantial remedial works would be required to bring the structure to a compliant standard.
There is an email from a compliance officer at Auckland Council dated 17 October 2025, which states that a notice to fix had been issued for contravention of the Building Act 2004. The officer stated that the owner must either remove the unauthorised works (which are not specified) or achieve compliance with the Building Act by obtaining a certificate of acceptance. The landlord says the notice to fix relates to height-to-boundary issues and drainage, and not to the foundations. The Tribunal has not been provided with the notice.
Section 45 of the Act requires the landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed by regulations and comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.
I am not satisfied that there was a leaking LPG installation, or if there was, that it was not attended to promptly by the landlord. There was no evidence supporting a compliance issue with the LPG cylinders delivered by Genesis Energy. On 4 June 2025 the owner emailed the tenant about a “small pressure issue” which was being attended to by the gasfitter. The system had been checked and was compliant. A gas-fitting certificate of compliance completed by a registered gasfitter and dated 6 June 2025 was provided by the landlord. This stated that the installation was “gastight”.
It is difficult to assess to what extent the premises complied, or did not comply, with the Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord said the tenant took the smoke alarms down. There was roof and wall insulation, but no underfloor insulation. There was no extractor fan in the bathroom until June 2025. The landlord did attempt to install a fan heater at the premises, although the tenant said the installation overheated the wall and had to be removed. There are no healthy home assessment reports to assist the Tribunal to understand what the compliance deficiencies were. What can be said is that the cottage probably did not fully comply with the Healthy Homes Standards in terms of insulation, heating, ventilation, and moisture (there is no damp-proof membrane) but the main issues with the premises were structural.
The tenant lived for over 3½ years in premises with structural safety and fire safety issues. The deck was rotten and was not repaired before the tenant vacated. The cottage could not be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord knew there was no building consent. At the same time, the Tribunal is unaware of any finding that the premises are dangerous or insanitary under the Building Act 2004.
The landlord suggested that the tenant was motivated by a dispute over his [animal-related] business at the premises. Even if that is the case, the issues identified by the consulting engineer are far from trivial. The tenant said his various medical problems had worsened in the cottage’s cold and damp conditions.
The landlord did attempt to remedy some of the issues, but the situation became overwhelming. I also acknowledge that the landlord faces the cost of complying with the notice to fix. The tenant had the benefit of residence at the cottage for several years, and it does not seem that he had concerns about structural issues during most of that period. Overall, I find there are some “special circumstances” to weigh in the landlord’s favour when determining the appropriate award under section 78A.
The landlord’s rent summary shows that the tenant owed rent arrears of $4,199.00 at the end of the tenancy (about 7 week’s rent). Pursuant to section 78A(3)(a)(i) of the Act, I decline to award this sum to the landlord. This is necessary to reflect the seriousness of the breach.
Pursuant to section 78A(4) of the Act, I also order the landlord to repay $4,200.00 (7 weeks’ rent) for the period when the premises were unlawful. The breach by the landlord is material, not technical. The premises have serious structural defects, and there has been substantial non-compliance with the Building Act 2004. Further, the landlord knowingly rented out premises which did not have a building consent and so could not be lawfully occupied for residential purposes. There are also maintenance issues and non-compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards.
The tenant is awarded the cost of the engineer’s structural assessment ($2,265.50). The tenant had to incur this cost (for which he had been invoiced) to establish a breach of the landlord’s obligations.
A meaningful award is necessary to deter landlords from renting unconsented premises. The award is intended to provide an appropriate remedy for the breaches of both sections 45 and 78A. Restraining Order and Exemplary damages
The landlord’s failure to comply with relevant building legislation and the Healthy Homes Standards is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 may be awarded.
I am not satisfied that the landlord intentionally failed to comply with her maintenance obligations. The condition of the premises seems to have come as something of a surprise to the landlord and the owner. I note that internally the cottage is well-presented. I consider that compliance with the Building Act 2004 has been sufficiently addressed above. It would be unjust to award exemplary damages in addition.
The tenant sought an order pursuant to section 109A restraining the landlord from committing any further unlawful acts contrary to section 45. It is an offence to intentionally contravene a restraining order.
I decline to issue a restraining order. The issues with the cottage are now a matter of public record. The Council has been notified and has taken action. The landlord is aware that the premises cannot be lawfully rented out again until Council approval is obtained. Gas Supply
The flat/house sharing agreement provided that the landlord would pay for outgoings such as electricity, gas, water and internet.
The tenant said the landlord failed to supply gas bottles which were used to heat water. The parties provided conflicting evidence about why the gas cylinders were sometimes not delivered. The landlord said this was because the tenant was running an [animal-related] business at the premises and the tenant had put up unauthorised fencing in connection with this. The evidence subpoenaed from Genesis Energy suggests that deliveries failed because of the presence of dogs and some unsafe steps. Eventually the parties arrived at a solution, cutting through a hedge to provide an alternative entry point for LPG deliveries.
The landlord’s obligation was to pay for gas supplies. I am not satisfied that the landlord interfered with the supply of gas cylinders. The landlord’s evidence was that she spent a lot of time speaking to Genesis to resolve the access issues. I recognise that the sporadic gas deliveries caused inconvenience to the tenant, especially in the winter. However, I am not satisfied that the landlord breached any of their obligations. Unlawful Entry
The tenant’s submissions explained that the landlord entered the premises on 17 June 2025 following a valid notice of inspection. The purpose of the entry was to assess kitchen and wall damage with the builder and not to conduct a routine inspection.
The tenant alleges that the landlord exceeded the scope of the inspection, refused to leave when consent was withdrawn, and returned unannounced ten minutes later. The tenant says that the landlord remained in the premises for about three minutes after she had been told to leave.
The tenant’s video shows the tenant asking the landlord to leave and the landlord refusing to do so because she had permission to be there. The tenant says he started videoing the landlord after she accused him of smoking drugs. The landlord said the tenant accused her of being a bad landlord and failing to fix the issues with the premises, which led to an argument and the tenant asking her to leave.
The video shows the tenant firmly but politely repeating that he wanted her to leave. The landlord initially refused to do so, and swore as she walked into the bathroom, followed by the tenant (“I’m not f****** leaving”). The builder was also present and placed himself between the protagonists. After several minutes the tenant started to say in a peremptory manner “Out. Get out of my home.” The tenant followed the landlord and the builder out of the premises when they left.
The tenant submitted that a landlord must restrict their entry to the lawful purpose stated in the notice. The tenant submitted that the Tribunal confirmed this in another case, where the landlord inspected areas unrelated to smoke alarms or heating checks. He also submitted that entry depends on ongoing consent from the tenant and the landlord’s presence became unlawful when she refused to leave.
The landlord had the right to enter the premises. It is not necessary to determine whether the landlord became a trespasser after she was asked to leave, a common law concept which the Act does not address directly. A right to enter does not relieve the landlord of their obligation not to interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises (section 38 of the Act). At the same time, I doubt whether a tenant can defeat the landlord’s right of entry for a specific purpose by withdrawing consent without reasonable grounds.
The tenant could have removed himself from the situation. Instead, he followed the landlord around inside and as she went outside, filming her all the time and complaining about the condition of the cottage. The landlord was not present for long after being asked to leave, did not threaten the tenant, and although emotionally triggered, seems to have been trying to get away from him when she went into the bathroom.
The tenant said the landlord returned after ten minutes, but there is no video of this, and it is unclear whether the landlord entered the cottage again. The landlord said the builder went back to collect her belongings. Both parties gave evidence about the effect of this incident on their emotional stability and health, and I have taken this into consideration.
I am satisfied that the landlord’s behaviour was a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. She did not leave when requested after the parties had started to argue and called the tenant a “nasty piece of work”. The landlord recognised that it would have been better if she had walked away, although I consider that the tenant contributed to the situation to some degree. The breach was moderate and not, in my view, at the serious end of the spectrum. I award $450.00 for breach of quiet enjoyment.
While the tenant submitted that this was part of a sustained pattern of unlawful entry by the landlord, I am not satisfied that this was the case. Landlord’s Application Vacated Compensation
The landlord claimed compensation for damage to the grounds from the tenant’s dog, carpet cleaning, water damage to the kitchen bench, replacement curtains, internal repairs to the French doors, and removal of unauthorised fencing.
In a notice to remedy dated 4 June 2025, the landlord stated that the tenant had removed decking boards as part of the construction of a pergola over the deck, impacting its structural integrity: “Ironically you have recently raised this as an issue for us to fix despite the fact you have caused this issue yourself.”
The same notice referred to damage to the internal windowsills caused by dogs chewing the woodwork. The landlord also said the tenant had failed to report a leaking tap, causing damage to the kitchen bench. The notice stated that the tenant’s dogs had caused mud around the deck, contributing to early signs of rot in the structure. The tenant had been operating a [animal-related] business and the landlord said the [animals] had caused extensive damage to the 60m² grass area. The tenant left grass seed behind for the landlord to use and denied that “ready lawn” was the best way to remediate.
The landlord claimed $1,420.00 for reinstating the lawn and a quote in the form of a text was provided. The landlord said they used “seconds” to keep the cost down. Assuming a cost of $10 per metre for the “ready lawn” product, plus $20 per metre for labour, multiplying these together gives a cost of $1,800.00. This makes no allowance for soil. I award the amount claimed by the landlord.
The tenant said he did not really dispute the claim for the cost of removing the fencing, but the Tribunal must still be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence for an award. The landlord said he paid $270.00 to a friend for 6 hours labour at $45.00 per hour. The photographs do not show the extent of the fencing and there is no invoice or receipt for the cost. I decline to award the cost of fencing removal.
The landlord claimed $210.00 for carpet cleaning and provided evidence of payment. The tenant accepted that the carpet needed cleaning although he queried whether it needed replacing. I award this cost.
The landlord claimed $309.56 for the cost of a replacement bench caused by water damage from a leaking tap, which the landlord said the tenant had failed to report for months. The tenant said he told the landlord about the leaking tap but also accepted that he could have fixed it. I decline to award compensation because I am unable to resolve the conflicting evidence. The tenant’s obligation was to notify the landlord, not to perform repairs. The tenant says the landlord was notified on 25 August 2024. This would have been a verbal report.
The landlord claimed $1,300.00 for materials and labour to fix the French doors, replace the glass in the doors, and labour to replace the kitchen bench. The bottom pane in a door was shown boarded up. The tenant accepted that his dogs damaged the French doors but noted that the invoice was not itemised. This does make apportionment of the invoice virtually impossible. I award nominal damages of $100.00 for damage to the French doors and glass replacement.
The landlord claimed $416.00 for replacement curtains. The tenant admitted that his dogs damaged the curtains but pointed out that there were no photographs or evidence of payment. I must decline to award this cost, which is not proved.
I consider it is appropriate to make these orders notwithstanding section 78A(3)(a)(ii) of the Act. The landlord’s claims are unrelated to the unlawful status of the premises for residential use. Procedural Matters Claim against the Owner
Towards the end of the second hearing the tenant said he wanted any orders to be made against both the landlord and the owner. The owner was appointed as the landlord’s representative, and I do not recall an earlier request that he be joined as a party. While the owner’s name was added to the flat share agreement, he had not authorised the landlord to do so.
There would be prejudice to the owner if he were to be added to the proceeding at such a late stage. I also find that he was not a party to the flat/house sharing agreement, which he did not sign. It is not appropriate to make any orders against the owner. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must order suppression to a party who has been “wholly or substantially” successful in the proceedings. Both parties requested name suppression. Overall, I consider that the tenant was the substantially successful party. I grant name suppression to the tenant.
The tenant is awarded the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5272467 — Exemplary damages at 20 Wheturangi Road, Greenlane, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5272467 — Exemplary damages at 20 Wheturangi Road, Greenlane, Auckland 1051

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