What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5273370 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 5273370?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5273370?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5273370?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12185228-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5273370 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 5273370?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5273370?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5273370?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12185228-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 4, 77 Carlton Mill Road, Merivale, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5273370 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5273370 — net $527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – loss of enjoyment of tenancy and electricity use	$500.00	Compensation – loss of enjoyment of tenancy and electricity use
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$527.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5273370 — net $527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – loss of enjoyment of tenancy and electricity use	$500.00	Compensation – loss of enjoyment of tenancy and electricity use
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$527.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Cowdy & Co Limited – as agent for the trustees of The Allan Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $527.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for a market rent determination is dismissed.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre to pay the bond of $1,900.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 28 July 2025. Ms Dalley and Ms Cowdy represented the landlord.
The proceedings were filed in the names of two tenants, but only one tenant is named in the tenancy agreement. The other named person elected to attend as a support person for the tenant. I have amended the proceedings to correctly reflect the parties.
Both parties provided documentary evidence and gave oral evidence, and they both made submissions. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it.
Although the landlord has agreed to refund the bond to the tenants in full, the bond has not been processed. Both parties agreed that I should deal with the bond in this order. Background
The tenancy started on 20 May 2021. It was a fixed term tenancy for one year; it then became a periodic tenancy.
The tenant has since vacated the tenancy. Major work is required to complete repairs following a storm event over Easter 2025.
The tenant filed her application about 7 weeks before the tenancy ended, though some of the claims relate to issues that arose in 2024. The landlord’s application was filed 1 week after the tenancy ended.
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages for alleged breaches by the landlord that amount to unlawful acts; compensation for delayed repairs, and a loss of enjoyment of the premises following leaking, the result of the Easter 2025 storm event; and a market rent determination.
The landlord has applied for the cost of repairs to a kitchen cupboard and for the cost of re-grouting the shower floor tiles. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Has the tenant proved breaches by the landlord that amount to unlawful acts? If so, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages. •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? •Should the Tribunal reduce the rent to an amount that the tenant considers is in line with market rent? •Has the landlord proved claims for repairs to the kitchen cupboard and to the shower floor grout? Relevant law
Section 25 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) allows a tenant in a periodic tenancy to apply any time for an order reducing the rent to an amount to be specified by the Tribunal that is in line with market rent.
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
A tenant is liable for careless or intentional damage. A tenant’s liability for damage is limited to the lesser of 4 weeks’ rent or the amount of the insurance excess if the landlord (the owner) is insured.
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).
Section 48 RTA sets out a landlord’s right of entry. 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. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667
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.
In Birch, the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Discussion Has the tenant proved breaches by the landlord that amount to unlawful acts? If so, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages.
The tenant submitted that the premises were not HHS compliant due to inadequate insulation, a gap under the front door, and gaps in the weather seal of the main bedroom windows upstairs and a door downstairs.
A failure to comply with the HHS, part of a landlord’s section 45 RTA responsibilities, if proved, is a defined unlawful act.
The landlord produced evidence that the premises are HHS compliant. The landlord has completed a HHS certificate of compliance. The ceiling insulation was disclosed in the tenancy agreement (the insulation statement) and there is a statement of insulation signed by the owner of the premises.
Due to the construction of the premises, an exemption applies to insulation. The insulation that is present (R3.2, not the required R3.3) is permitted due to the exemption, the result of the design of the premises.
The tenant submitted that this was a misrepresentation. I do not agree. The R value was disclosed. I do not find either that the landlord misrepresented the insulation status of the premises, or that there is a proven breach of the HHS regarding insulation.
Ms Dalley produced proof that the front door has a required gap as it is a fire door from an internal corridor. The door is required to have a clearance up to 10mm. Again, I find no breach of the HHS.
Nor do I find any HHS breach as alleged by the tenant so far as gaps permitting draughts in the bedroom windows. The photos of the windows in the main bedroom and a sliding glass door in the main living area which the tenant states are missing weather stripping do not prove HHS non-compliance.
There are very small gaps in the weather seals, but not something that requires obvious repair. The window frames are aluminium and the windows double glazed. The photos are taken in an open position. In the absence of an assessment that specifically addresses the HHS, I cannot conclude from the evidence produced that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS.
The tenant referred to instances when there were multiple inspections with less than the required notice. She said on one occasion in June 2024, the owner wanted to come to do work in the kitchen, but it was clear he had undertaken other work because the bedroom curtains had been opened and some of the tenant’s belongings had been moved. Inadequate notice was given for a window cleaner to attend and for a plumber to fix a waste disposal unit.
None of these instances meets the definition of unlawful entry. Though frustrating for the tenant, she has not proved the required element of intent – the landlord turning their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately deciding to go about it. Any disruption to the tenant can be addressed by an award of compensation.
I dismiss the claim for exemplary damages. The tenant has failed to prove any intentional breach of a landlord responsibility that amounts to a defined unlawful act.

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation?

The tenant gave evidence of several matters that she said were breaches by the landlord for which she sought compensation.
For the period when affected by a leak through the ceiling, she sought a 50% rent reduction between 6 May and 16 July 2025 (10 weeks) and $30.00 per week for 2½ years for the deteriorating shower floor tile grouting which she said made the tiles ‘squishy’ and difficult to clean.
Compensation is not punitive; it simply recognises and compensates a loss due to a breach by, in this case, the landlord. It can encompass a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to delays in repairs even when the landlord is not at fault.
Ms Dalley said the landlord had offered compensation based on the estimated higher power use due to the contactor’s equipment drying the premises after the roof leak ($39.74) and a 15% rent reduction for a period of 8 days ($99.44).
Rent can only abate when premises are destroyed or so seriously damaged either in whole or in part so as to become uninhabitable. There is no evidence that these premises became uninhabitable.
The tenant’s requested 50% rent reduction is unrealistic. So too is the claim for compensation of $30.00 per week for the deteriorating shower tile grout. That did not prevent the use of the shower. It was annoying at best and made cleaning more difficult.
So too, the instances when the tenant says there was inadequate notice of attendances at the premises by contractors. The remedy was to simply say no to the requested entry. That said, when repairs are required reasonable common sense and co-operation is required. Relying on strict legals rights can result in delayed repairs due to contractor availability.
I accept (as does the landlord) that the tenant was disrupted by the work that was required after the leaking caused by the storm. The storm event that caused damage was not a landlord breach. And while the tenant submitted that the fact of the leak established landlord repair and maintenance neglect, that is speculation. Ms Cowdy said the owner of the premises was careful about maintenance and worked to a plan. The Easter storm event resulted in a state of emergency being declared; it was not simply heavy rain.
While there was some mould caused as a result of the leak following the storm, I am satisfied that the landlord took all reasonable actions. The evidence does not establish that the premises had a mould problem generally, even though the tenant stated that there was evidence of a previous leaking event once the carpets were lifted.
The tenant experienced disruption because of the equipment needed to dry the premises and that affected the use of the room where the leaking occurred (the upstairs bedroom) for a number of days. The tenant also experienced a period of disruption due to the waste disposal unit failing, and the replacement unit seizing requiring another unit to be installed.
The tenant described mess being left behind she had to clean up after a contractor cleaned the skylight. The landlord acknowledged that.
The tenant’s concern that the owner of the premises used access to repair the kitchen cupboard to undertake another repair is noted. Landlords must take care when accessing premises, since a tenant’s privacy can be breached when assumptions are made about what has been agreed to. Some tenants are co- operative and unconcerned, others not.
I have already determined that the owner did not unlawfully enter the premises. But he might have unintentionally gone beyond the access the tenant agreed to. Or it might have been a simple misunderstanding. The tenant’s discomfort with what happened is noted and can be addressed as part of the award of compensation generally.
In terms of the issues the Tribunal encounters, the matters raised by the tenant were more aggravations than landlord breaches. The tenant did experience some loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to all the matters noted, but none stands out as a deliberate landlord breach that requires the Tribunal to intervene in a significant way.
I have decided that the tenant should receive a modest amount of compensation for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to all the matters she raised, some very minor (such as the shower tile grout) and some more disruptive such as the effects of the ceiling leak the cause of which was a significant weather-related event. And there were some minor actual costs incurred by the tenant – the use of her electricity for the drying equipment used by the contractor.
This is a case where compensation is best awarded on a global basis. Taking account of the factors identified in Birch, I award the tenant compensation of $500.00. Should the Tribunal reduce the rent to an amount that the tenant considers is in line with market rent?
This claim relates to a notice the landlord gave on 5 August 2024 to increase the rent from $510.00 per week to $580.00. The increase took effect from 10 October 2024.
The tenant can make this application because the tenancy became a periodic tenancy. A fixed term tenancy has time restrictions for making such applications.
Section 25 RTA enables the Tribunal to set what it considers to be the market rent if the rent increase exceeds the market rent ‘by a substantial amount’.
The tenant believes that the market rent was $560.00 per week rather than $580.00.
Both parties provided comparisons with other similar properties in the same area.
Section 25(3) RTA defines market rent as the rent, without regard to the personal circumstances of either the landlord or the tenant, that a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive, and a willing tenant would reasonably expect to pay taking into consideration the general level of rents for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or similar localities.
The examples the tenant provided showed rents of $550.00 and $560.00 but were for properties listed in 2025.
The landlord’s examples (4 properties) were from before the rent increase and towards the end of August 2024, and showed rents between $565.00 and $640.00 per week.
The landlord also produced a rental appraisal done by another property management firm dated 23 July 2025 referred to as a market rent appraisal. The price range is between $570 and $590.00 per week. The report writer states: We manage another property very similar to this property on Exeter Street which is close by. The rent for this apartment is currently $580.00 per week.
I have considered all the evidence relating to the market rent for this tenancy. First, the Tribunal must determine the market rent from the available evidence – see Fisken & Associates Limited v Lecole and Lecole 2 . I find that the market rent then was probably $580.00 per week. Therefore, I do not find that the increased rent exceeded the market rent at all, let alone ‘by a substantial amount’.
I dismiss the application for a market rent determination that sets the rent lower than the amount the rent was increased to. Has the landlord proved claims for repairs to the kitchen cupboard and to the shower floor grout?
The landlord has 2 claims for repairs - $250.00 for a kitchen cupboard (pantry) repair and $345.00 (and 1 week’s rent as further compensation) for repairing the grouting on the tiled shower floor.
The owner believes that the pantry door was forced shut causing damage. The tenant states that that was not possible as it was a credenza style door, as shown in photos produced in evidence. She also notes that the invoice is dated 18 January 2024 but was only brought to her attention last Friday. 2 [2023] NZDC 17698
The owner believes the grout was damaged by an attachment (a filter) the tenant installed on the shower hose causing the water to have a greater impact on the shower floor.
The tenant disputes both claims. She said the initial property inspection report showed that the pantry door handle was broken, which the owner repaired.
The tenant noted Ms Dalley’s evidence that grout repairs were required in other units as well. She said the grout was already damaged at the start of the tenancy.
I find neither claim proved. The owner’s statement that the cabinet door was forced shut is speculation and is denied by the tenant. The repair was completed in January 2024. Had the landlord (the owner) really considered it to have been tenant damage the Tribunal would have expected the issue to have been raised sooner. The invoice in support of the claim contains no useful narration at all.
The suggestion that the water filter the tenant installed caused damage to the tile grouting in the shower is speculation as well. Ms Dalley said that grout repairs in other units had been done also. As the tenant correctly noted, it would be most unlikely that those units had water filters installed by tenants that caused damage.
Further, the quote for the grouting work refers to 2 showers needing repair. It contains no useful information as to why the work is needed, in other words, what caused the need for the grout repairs.
The Tribunal regards both of these repair matters as landlord maintenance. The evidence does not establish on the balance of probabilities that the tenant caused careless or intentional damage.
The landlord’s application is dismissed. Result
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for an order reducing the rent to an amount she considers was the market rent is dismissed.
The landlord will pay the tenant compensation of $500.00 together with the filing fee the tenant paid – a total of $527.00.
The bond will be paid to the tenant. Name suppression
Both parties sought name suppression. The landlord is not entitled to an order for name suppression as its application is unsuccessful. I make an order suppressing the name of the tenant as her application is partly successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5273370 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 77 Carlton Mill Road, Merivale, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5273370 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 77 Carlton Mill Road, Merivale, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions