What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5277523 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants have been substantially successful and the Tribunal Orders

How much money was awarded in case 5277523?

Compensation: $4,200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Moving Costs: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $15,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277523?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277523?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12552874-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5277523 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants have been substantially successful and the Tribunal Orders

How much money was awarded in case 5277523?

Compensation: $4,200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Moving Costs: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $15,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277523?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277523?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12552874-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

467 Marine Parade, Napier South, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5277523 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5277523. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
General damages – lead contamination	$15,000.00	General damages – lead contamination
Compensation - breach of right to quiet enjoyment	$4,200.00	Compensation - breach of right to quiet enjoyment
Compensation: moving costs	$500.00	moving costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5277523. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
General damages – lead contamination	$15,000.00	General damages – lead contamination
Compensation - breach of right to quiet enjoyment	$4,200.00	Compensation - breach of right to quiet enjoyment
Compensation: moving costs	$500.00	moving costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

ORDER

The tenants have been substantially successful and the Tribunal Orders suppression of the tenants’ identifying details. Grounds for suppression of the landlords’ details are not shown. 1
SHHB Reed Limited t/a Pukeko Rental Managers and the Trustees of N & J Peterson Family Trust No 2 must pay

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The owners were represented by counsel. Background
This application involves an older style (circa 1900), painted weatherboard house.
The tenants began living there in October 2024. Their son [Tenant’s son] was then just over 1 year old.
When they moved in, the tenants asked for a two week rent rebate saying that: “I want to let you know that house 467 Marine Parade we took from Friday 20 th October last week was really really badly no cleaning done in the house. 1. Carpet in the house is really filthy specially the bottom part of the house, carpet is almost black there are huge marks in the living area, I have to hire a cleaner to clean the carpet. 2. Kitchen is full with stickiness all the walls and ceiling of the kitchen area is full with marks and stickiness three floor of the kitchen is also full of black spots for back of the house deck is green with mould I had to bring water blast and wash it. 5. back store and front store of the house is also full of garbage and cobwebs. 6.in all the house including one toilet are at beck is full cobwebs. 7. not even the vacuum is done in the house I found a lot small rubbish in the carpet while doing vacuum. Since we moved in the house we are cleaning the house and it is going to take another two or three days to clean fully. All our long weekend went cleaning up the house."
The property manager responded, “I don't really appreciate this e-mail when I did my best to get you in as early as you wanted. There was over $1,000.00 spent on the house getting it ready for you including another invoice that I haven't received yet. I have attached all but one of the invoices for work done. This is an older type house that is in great location close to local shops and the beach. It is rented for a lower amount due to it being an older house. I won't be giving a week rent reduction as you have asked for.”
The tenants did not take their complaint further, saying that they were just concerned for the health of their baby and wanted to give the property managers feedback about the quality of their cleaners’ work.
From early 2025 the tenants began having concerns about [Tenant’s son]. Those concerns were raised with the Plunket nurse who referred them to a GP. The GP arranged blood tests. Those tests showed dangerously low iron levels, vitamin D deficiency and the presence of worrying levels of lead. The tenants were told that someone would be sent to the house to check for the source of the lead.
A doctor and Environmental Health Officer visited on 27 May 2025. Lead was found in paint inside the house and in soil outside.
The tenants advised the property manager about the levels of lead found in [Tenant’s son]’s blood tests and that lead had been found in indoor paint and outdoor soil. They asked if the property manager had other, safe, properties that they might move to. The property manager asked for a copy of the report, also saying, “if you want to relocate – that’s fine with me”.
The tenants got the report from Te Whatu Ora and gave a copy to the property manager. The key parts of that report, which is dated 30 May 2025, note: “[Tenant’s son] is a 21 month old boy......On the 12 th May 2025 we were notified that he had a whole Blood Lead level of 0.36umol/L. There is no safe level but public health is notified if it exceeds 0.24umol/L. Paint and Dust: A lead paint test kit was purchased from Resene Paints on 23rd May 2025 in preparation for the environmental investigation. Most fixed surfaces on the inside of the house (doorframes, doors, windowsills) tested positive for lead using the test kit. Also, the yellow and red paint on the outside of the house tested positive as being lead paint, as did any exposed wood that would have been coated with lead paint. Important to note: the paint finish on the house, especially the outside is in an extremely poor state of repair. There are widespread areas of paint flaking which would eventually break down into smaller particles in the soil and carpets. Soil Hazards: soil testing is a specific test which does not work very well with the lead paint test kit. However, there is clearly paint flakes, chips and dust mixed in with the soil, especially around the edges of the house. While being unable to state with complete certainty, given the state of repair of the paint on this house, it is highly likely that [Tenant’s son]’s lead exposure is primarily due to exposure to paint from the house. His age and low iron have put him at increased risk. [Tenant’s son] has no current signs of health effects related to lead. However there is no safe level of lead exposure and long-term exposure can have long term effects on health including growth, cognition and learning problems.”
After receiving the report the property manager confirmed that the tenants could leave the premises without having to give notice. Another property was offered to the tenants, but it wasn’t affordable.
On 16 June the tenants had the premises tested by [Property inspection company]. Samples were taken from the exterior of the property and an upstairs bedroom. Analysis of the samples by [a laboratory] found lead in both samples.
The landlords had their own testing done, which I am told confirmed the presence of lead at the premises. The landlords have chosen not to put the results of that testing in evidence.
The tenants found another property and moved out on 18 July 2025.
The landlords make no claim against the tenants’ $2,280.00 bond. They knew the tenants were having to find another rental property, needed a bond and were under financial pressure. Despite that, for reasons I struggle to understand, the landlords did not release the tenants’ bond to them until required to do so by the Tribunal at the hearing on 24 September. It has now been refunded
The evidence suggests that since moving, [Tenant’s son]’s health has improved. A report from his Doctor, Dr [name redacted], dated 5 September 2025 notes: “[Tenant’s son]’s health is improving, but mid- August (six months post symptom onset) blood testing reveals a lead level 0.28 umol/L) which is improved but still above the expected range for a child(<0.24 umol/L). His body is still working hard to eliminate the toxic exposure and this may take many months. To summarise, it is my professional opinion that [Tenant’s son] has suffered material physical harm to his health from environmental exposure to lead (confirmed by MoH), arsenic (hair testing, not arranged by MOH), and cadmium (hair testing, not arranged by MoH) consistent with exposure to dusts generated from the paint and timbers of the house he previously occupied.” The Applications
The tenants seek refund of all rent paid by them during the tenancy and exemplary damages for what they say was the landlords’ failure to ensure the premises were safe. Issues
The Tribunal needs to decide: a. whether lead in paint at the premises created a health risk for the tenants and harmed [Tenant’s son]; b. if so, whether the landlords should be required to pay the tenants compensation and/or exemplary damages. Analysis Did lead in paint at the premises create a health risk for the tenants and cause harm to [Tenant’s son]?
The Te Whatu Ora report confirms the presence of lead in interior paint and in soil outside the property. That is corroborated by the tests undertaken by [Property inspection company] and, I understand, the landlords’ tests. The landlords accept that lead based paint is present in some locations at the property.
There is unchallenged evidence that [Tenant’s son] had and still has, elevated levels of lead in his blood.
Counsel for the landlord questions whether the elevated levels of lead found in [Tenant’s son]’s blood are proved to have been caused by the lead in paint at the property.
This is the tenants’ claim. They need to provide evidence that proves the facts on which their claim is based, on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not).
The medical evidence provided all suggests that the most likely cause for the elevated lead levels in [Tenant’s son]’s blood, is exposure to the lead found at the premises. The landlord has not brought contrary evidence.
The landlord also questions whether the evidence proves actual harm being caused to [Tenant’s son], referencing the comment in the Te Whatu Ora report that “...he has no current signs of health effects related to lead”. The next line of that report says “.....there is no safe level of lead exposure and long-term exposure can have long term effects on health including growth, cognition and learning problems.”
The best evidence the Tribunal has on that point is from Dr [name redacted] who gives his unequivocal medical opinion that, “[Tenant’s son] has suffered material physical harm to his health from environmental exposure to lead..”
I find it proved on balance that lead in paint at the premises has caused health risks to the tenants and actual harm to [Tenant’s son].

Should compensation be awarded?

The evidence shows, as well as the health effects, the anguish [The tenant/s] have suffered through fear for [Tenant’s son]’s health and development. They have had to find alternative, safe, accommodation with urgency and in difficult circumstances. [The tenant 2] gave birth to their second child by caesarean section on 5 June 2025.
For compensation to be awarded, that harm must be shown to have been caused by a breach of the landlord’s obligations.
The questions the Tribunal needs to answer in this case are essentially the same as those posed in Lindup and Cox v Quinovic Property Management 2 . Lindup differs from this case in that the lead contamination occurred in the course of repainting work being done. That work was subject to regulatory requirements so the decision was primarily concerned with the landlord’s obligations under s.45(1)(c) 3 .
There, the Tribunal found that [para 15] “The landlord did not set out to create harm and could have fully expected the contractor to mitigate any risks.” and that [para 16], “...the landlord took appropriate steps to hire a competent contractor to repaint the property. The contractor tested the property before work began to check for lead. It was a surprise to all concerned when lead contamination was discovered by the tenants”
Having determined that the landlord was not at fault in those ways, the Tribunal nevertheless found that the landlord was in breach of its obligations under s.45(1)(c). The Tribunal also noted [para 9], “The landlord would also find themselves in breach of s.38 4 in the event of a mishap if this results in any inconvenience, stress or anxiety”
Since that decision was issued in January 2021, s.45 RTA has been amended by the addition of subs (1)(bd), requiring that a landlord comply with all requirements in respect of contaminants imposed on the landlord by regulations made for that purpose. No such Regulations have been made that the landlord could be in breach of. I don’t find a breach of s.45(1)(bd) proved.
While no Regulations have been issued dealing with lead paint contamination in residential rentals, there is ample guidance available on the risks it poses.
Kainga Ora’s policies assume all properties built before 1997 to contain lead based paint. Pre-1945 properties such as this one are assumed to have a high lead content. Tenants are asked contact the landlord if there is damage, flaking or chipping, to the paint, because that creates health risks.
Comprehensive “Guidelines for the Management of Lead-Based Paint” (“the Guidelines”) are published by Worksafe, principally dealing with practices for the safe removal of lead based paints. The Guidelines state that while they have, “....no formal status under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, it may be considered to constitute a preferred work practice and could be taken into consideration by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment in determining whether the “all practicable steps’’ obligations in the Health and 2 Lindup and Cox v Quinovic Property management [2021] NZTT Wellington 4282754 3 Under s.41(1)(c) a landlord must, “comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises,” 4 “(2) The tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. Safety in Employment Act 1992 (HSE) have been satisfied. Failure to follow its content could be admissible as evidence in a prosecution.....”
They can therefore also be given considerable weight when considering what steps should reasonably be taken to manage potential harm from exposure to lead based paints in residential rentals.
The Guidelines include specific advice for property owners/ managers. Relevant extracts include: “3.4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 “The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for tenant health protection by requiring a 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 buildings, health and safety under any enactments that apply to the premises. Landlords are thus required to protect occupants and others from (among other things) lead contamination arising from paintwork in the tenant’s property or its fixtures and fittings.” “5.2 Lead Management Guidelines for Landlords, Managers and Owners These are the guidelines that landlords, managers and owners must follow: Assume paintwork on pre-1980 buildings to be lead-based, unless it is proven otherwise by records or testing.” “Properties where lead-based paint coatings are flaking or dusting present a potential source of elevated background levels in house dust and soil, and hence an increased risk of exposure for occupants. Young children and the foetus are particularly affected by lead poisoning and, in many cases, their condition goes unnoticed. “Lead-based paintwork in occupied properties may present a hazard where:..... • Paintwork is in an advanced state of deterioration (i.e. chalking or flaking). • Flaking paintwork has contaminated adjacent soil or vegetation. • Paintwork is in a situation or condition where it may be consumed (directly or indirectly) by children or animals.”
I do not find that failure to comply with the Guidelines, of itself constitutes a breach of s.45(1)(c). That provision requires that landlords, “...comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.” The Guidelines are not an “enactment”.
The evidence does not identify any other specific enactment(s) that the landlords breached by failing to identify and address the health risks posed by lead in these premises.
In dealing with residential rental properties, the Guidelines assume that a landlord’s failure to protect tenants from exposure to lead based paints is a breach of their obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair 5 .
Particularly given the extent of guidance available and the ease with which that guidance can be accessed, I agree that these premises cannot be said to have been provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair, while being contaminated by lead.
I therefore find the landlords to have breached their obligations under s.40(1)(b). They should compensate the tenants for the consequences of that breach.
Consistent with Lindup, I also find that the landlord’s failure to identify and address the lead paint risk breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises 6 . From the point the tenants became aware that the lead contamination in the premises had affected [Tenant’s son], there was minimal value to them in continuing to live in the premises and they stayed only as long as they had to until they could find another home.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Breach of a landlord’s obligations under s.45(1)(b) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded.
Where an unlawful act has been committed intentionally, the Tribunal may make an award of exemplary damages up to that maximum, where it is just to do so. The Tribunal must first consider the landlord’s intentions, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the tenants and the public interest 7 .
The fundamental question here is whether the landlord’s breach of its obligations under s.45(1)(b) can be said to have been intentional.
I have no doubt that the last thing the landlords wanted or intended is for the tenants or their son to be harmed by lead contamination from living in the premises.
The evidence shows indicators of risk that were known to the landlords: 5 S.45(1)(b) 6 S.38 RTA 7 S.109(3) RTA a. the property was of an age where the likelihood of high levels of lead in the paint ought to have been assumed; b. photographic evidence shows obvious deterioration and flaking of paint inside and outside the premises. The Whatu Ora report notes the presence of lead on most fixed surfaces inside the house as well as outside and the extremely poor condition of the paint; c. the property manager reported to the Owners following the inspection in October 2024 that “Exterior needs a paint in places 3/10/24” d. The tenants had a very young child.
That combination of risk indicators should have prompted the landlords to check for lead contamination.
In addressing the issue of intention, in Stoeveken v Toherfiri and Aso 8 the District Court said [para 35] “...the unlawful act must have been committed intentionally in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge that they were not meeting their obligations.”
A1 Property Managers Limited v Duggan and Ors 9 , involved a somewhat analogous situation to this, where the landlords failed to have the premises tested for methamphetamine contamination. Later tests showed them to be highly contaminated.
The Tribunal awarded exemplary damages against the landlord on the basis that the landlords knew or ought to have known that there was a risk of contamination but failed to take any of the available steps to mitigate the risk.
On appeal, the District Court defined the issue as being [para 36], “...whether the [landlord] intentionally turned a blind eye to the possibility that the property was contaminated......” Given the many risk indicators known to the landlords, that is the appropriate question to ask here too.
The Court found, “I am, therefore, not satisfied that the appellant committed the unlawful act (by providing premises that were not healthy and safe) intentionally. The [landlords] may have acted negligently but there is no evidence to support the conclusion that the [landlord] in fact turned their mind to the act and deliberately set out to commit it.”
The property manager has given evidence, supported by a statement from the Franchisor of the property management group, that the question of the need to test for lead residue has never been raised in any industry information or training 8 Stoeveken v Toherfiri and Aso [2022] NZDC 9698 9 A1 Property Managers Limited v Duggan and Ors [2021] NZDC 9168 in the Franchisor’s 21 years’ experience as a property manager. I find that very surprising, and frankly disturbing. Other property managers, Kainga Ora being a case in point, have a clear awareness of the dangers and have policies around it. Nevertheless, I have no reason to disbelieve that evidence.
Ms Phillips has given evidence for the owners that the premises were occupied by family then by a family friend from 1990 to 2023. Some remodelling of the kitchen and a full repaint of the inside was completed in the early 2000’s. She says that no concerns about possible lead contamination had been raised with the owners and that now they are aware, the premises are being remediated.
Following A1 v Duggan, for the Tribunal to find the landlord’s breach to be intentional, I would need to find that they had turned their minds to the risk of lead contamination but consciously decided not to take steps to address that risk.
The evidence does not support that finding.
Given the indicators they were aware of, the landlords ought to have turned their mind to the risks. They were negligent in failing to so.
They did, knowingly and intentionally, allow the paintwork to deteriorate badly in places, which significantly exacerbated the contamination risk. I don’t though find it proved that that they actually thought about that risk and intentionally did nothing.
It follows that an award of exemplary damages can’t be made.

What compensation should be awarded?

General Damages

Sometimes, a party’s breach causes harm to the other party that is non- monetary and can’t be assessed mathematically.
This is such a case. The tenants have undoubtedly suffered serious harm, but it has not been of a financial nature.
In those circumstances, it is appropriate to consider making an award of general damages, the purpose of which, as described in Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 9 is not to compensate for a quantifiable loss but to compensate for pain or suffering or emotional distress.
The Court in Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) 10 endorsed in Birch, found that in assessing the quantum of general damages, the Tribunal must take into account: a. the nature of the breach 10 Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT2378/92, 25 August 1993 b. the duration of the breach c. the effect of the breach on the party.
Here, the breach could hardly have been more serious. It resulted in the tenants paying rent to stay in premises that posed a health risk to them and caused actual and potentially serious harm to their young son.
The nature of the breach is aggravated because of the many indicators of risk that the landlord should have been aware of and addressed and their having knowingly allowed the condition of the paintwork at the premises to so badly deteriorate.
The breach extended though the whole of the tenancy and would have continued but for the symptoms [Tenant’s son] exhibited, that led the tenants to seek health advice. Though it is to be hoped that [Tenant’s son]’s improvement continues, the consequences of the breach are ongoing.
The effect of the breach on the tenants was profound. It is obviously an immensely harrowing experience to find that your infant child has been subjected to toxins that could cause lasting health issues and developmental delays.
In her initial submission, [Tenant 2] described her experience of the situation this way: “.....the property manager only asked for report. So I called the environment officer for the official report. On 30 May, we receive the official report and forwarded it to them right away. After that, the only response we received was an offer for a property we could not afford, and no other follow-up or support. Meanwhile, we contacted Work and Income multiple times through phone calls and visited in person for emergency houses. They initially requested evidence. After I submitted the lead report, they were told we were not eligible for emergency housing. Even though I had a C-section on 5 June, I personally went to WINZ the day after coming back to the hospital. Meanwhile my midwife helped me to find a social worker so that we get a help in time to find a house, she met us in the hospital and arranged our appointment with WINZ, but nothing worked for us. My husband also asked for assistance to many people for this situation. I was in my final weeks of pregnancy when all this happened. I had gestational diabetes, pelvic pain, and medical appointments. During this entire time, we had no family support, I was attending my own medical appointments for diabetes and pelvic issues, and we were under extreme mental and financial stress. We applied for many private rentals but received no approvals. We applied to many rentals and Facebook marketplace for house, got declined multiple times and did not hear back. We are now finally moving into a new property on 17 July 2025, but the damage and distress caused to our child and our family have been significant. As tenants, we trusted that the property met New Zealand’s legal health and safety standards under the Residential Tenancies Act. There was no disclosure about any lead hazard, no signage, and no pre-tenancy checks. The landlord’s failure to identify or act upon these dangers placed our family — including a toddler and an unborn baby — at serious risk. We were emotionally, physically, and financially drained. While most families focus on welcoming a newborn, we were attending appointments, chasing help from agencies, and worrying about toxic exposure in our own home. We felt completely unsupported and abandoned.”
The award cannot include compensation for injury suffered by [Tenant’s son] 11 .
There were circumstances that made the impacts on the tenants as described by [Tenant 2], more acute, such as the proximity of the birth of their second child, and absence of family support. Those are not factors directly flowing from the landlords’ breach.
Fundamentally though, this was a very serious breach causing a very high degree of pain, suffering and emotional distress to the tenants. The tenants made a major effort to ensure the premises were safe and healthy for their child, as shown by the correspondence when they first moved in. Despite that, they paid rent to live in a property that was not safe and healthy and caused them harm.
As to the amount of damages that should be awarded, in Tenant v Ezy Rentals 12 the Tribunal said: “By reference to Otautahi, I consider the bands that might usefully inform the Tribunal’s decision in this case are: A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $2,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of over $3,000.00.”
In my view this case is undoubtedly at the upper end of the scale.
In Birch the Court noted (at para 90) the difficulty in assessing damages that do not relate to compensation for financial and its view that past awards of general damages had not been overly generous. The Court was there considering an unlawful entry into the premises. After finding that [para 90], “....while the entry was not intentional nor the actions on behalf of the [landlord] malicious, there was clearly an adverse impact on [the tenant]”, general damages of $2,000.00 were awarded. 11 S.317 Accident Compensation Act 2001 12 Tenant v Ezy Rentals [2022] NZTT 4323927
In all relevant respects, the situation here and the impacts on the tenants are (with respect to the tenant in Birch) many orders of magnitude more consequential.
If premises should not be rented because they can’t lawfully be occupied for residential purposes, the starting point for compensation is to refund of the rent paid less an amount that may be deducted to recognise special circumstances 13 .
It is difficult to see why a less robust approach should be taken when, as here, premises should not be rented out because they pose a health risk.
I find, applying the Palmer criteria to those identified features of this case, that the tenants have established an entitlement to a meaningful and significant award of general damages, which I fix at $15,000.00. Breach of Right to Quiet Enjoyment
From the date the Te Whatu Ora report was available: a. the tenants’ use and enjoyment of the premises was effective nil. They knew them to pose a risk to their family’s health and they left as soon as they could; and b. the landlords knew that the premises posed a health risk to the tenants.
The landlords allowed the tenants to leave without notice and offered them another property but otherwise didn’t take steps to ensure their obligation to provide the tenants with safe accommodation was met. It would be inequitable for the landlords to continue to profit from renting out premises they knew were unhealthy and unsafe.
I accordingly Order compensation equal to refund of the rent paid from 30 May 2025 to 17 July 2025.
The tenants claim compensation for moving costs. Often those costs are not seen as being caused by a landlord’s breach because generally they will be incurred anyway when the tenancy ends.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that here, if they had been able to move in normal circumstances, they would have been able to make arrangements to do that without incurring the cost and inconvenience required for this move, which was made under pressure because of the landlord’s breach.
I accept that the tenants have suffered some loss in that regard and a modest compensatory award is made. 13 S.78A(4) RTA
As the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5277523 — Property damage at 467 Marine Parade, Napier South, Napier 4110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5277523 — Property damage at 467 Marine Parade, Napier South, Napier 4110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

ORDER

Reasons

Should compensation be awarded?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

What compensation should be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

ORDER

Reasons

Should compensation be awarded?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

What compensation should be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions