What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5278653 about?

The tribunal order states: The Worx Property Management Limited and Rahul Sarangal must pay [The tenant/s] $700.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

How much money was awarded in case 5278653?

Compensation: Breach Of Section 45: $700.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5278653?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5278653?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13225851-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5278653 about?

The tribunal order states: The Worx Property Management Limited and Rahul Sarangal must pay [The tenant/s] $700.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

How much money was awarded in case 5278653?

Compensation: Breach Of Section 45: $700.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5278653?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5278653?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13225851-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Ewbank Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5278653 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5278653 — net $700.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach of section 45	$700.00	Breach of section 45
Net award	$700.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$700.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5278653 — net $700.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach of section 45	$700.00	Breach of section 45
Net award	$700.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$700.00

Order

The Worx Property Management Limited and Rahul Sarangal must pay [The tenant/s] $700.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (BN-00084698) to Cora Jo- Marie Fatialofa immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was convened on 12 February 2026. Ms Fatialofa attended the hearing as the tenant. Mr Khan is the property manager for this tenancy and attended on behalf of the landlord, The Worx Property Management Limited - As Agent For Rahul Sarangal . Introduction
This is the Tribunal’s decision on the tenant’s remaining claims following the determination of the retaliatory notice issue. The retaliatory notice claim was dismissed by decision dated 3 November 2025. The tenancy then terminated pursuant to that decision at 5.00pm on 7 November 2025.
The tenant’s remaining claims arise from an application filed on 4 June 2025 and relate to the scope of the tenancy, alleged misrepresentation, failure to maintain and repair the premises, non-compliance with statutory obligations including bond lodgement and Healthy Homes requirements, unlawful entry, and monetary relief including compensation, exemplary damages, and payment of bond and rent credits.
The hearing proceeded after a previous substantive hearing date on 16 December 2025 was adjourned for reasons of procedural fairness. The Tribunal is mindful that this dispute has been ongoing for an extended period. The tenant’s evidence describes sustained stress and safety concerns affecting her and her children. Those concerns are acknowledged. The Tribunal’s task, however, is to determine the claims by reference to the evidence and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
As the applicant, the tenant bears the burden of proof. The civil standard applies. The tenant must establish her claims on the balance of probabilities, meaning that it must be shown that what is alleged is more likely than not correct. This is the burden of proof. Procedural History
On 5 September 2025, case conference notes were issued setting out the scope of the dispute, prioritising the retaliatory notice issue, and giving directions for evidence and filing. The case conference noted there was a live dispute about whether the converted garage and an adjacent shed formed part of the tenancy, and that the tenant sought work orders, compensation, and exemplary damages for various alleged breaches.
On 3 November 2025, the Tribunal determined the retaliatory notice claim only. The Tribunal held the termination notice was lawful and not retaliatory, terminated the tenancy with possession to the landlord at 5.00pm on 7 November 2025, and adjourned the remaining claims for determination at a further hearing.
On 16 December 2025, a hearing of the remaining claims was adjourned at the landlord’s request. The Tribunal recorded disappointment at the late nature of the adjournment request, but concluded it was necessary in the interests of justice to avoid unfair prejudice to the landlord given the seriousness and complexity of the allegations, including claims for exemplary damages.
This decision follows the rescheduled hearing of the remaining claims. It also takes into account that the tenancy ended on 7 November 2025. As a result, work orders are generally no longer appropriate; however, the Tribunal retains jurisdiction to determine claims for compensation and exemplary damages arising from the tenancy period. Background
The parties entered a periodic tenancy agreement on 12 March 2025 for the premises situated at 3 Ewbank place, Manurewa, Auckland 2103, commencing 13 March 2025. The weekly rent was $700 and the bond was $2,800. The tenancy was facilitated through a social housing placement. The tenancy agreement contained a clause indicating an intention to demolish or substantially rebuild the premises and that relevant consents had been applied for.
The tenant’s evidence is that the premises were advertised as including a “double garage”. The tenant says she understood that the converted garage space and an adjacent shed formed part of the tenancy and that this understanding was reinforced at viewing and in communications with the property manager. The tenant says that shortly after moving in she accessed the garage on 18 March 2025 and discovered it was a self-contained living space rather than a conventional double garage. She says the garage later became unusable due to a ceiling collapse and mould growth. The tenant also says she raised a range of other repair and safety concerns, including electrical hazards, leaks, mould, a defective windbreaker panel, and safety issues around a shed.
The tenant issued a 14-day notice to remedy dated 16 May 2025. The notice recorded that issues had been reported earlier, including on 24 April 2025 and 8 May 2025, and sought repairs and documentation including a property condition report and evidence of Healthy Homes exemption and consents. The tenant says there was no adequate response to the 14-day notice within the notice period.
The tenant’s evidence also includes that the bond was not lodged by 9 May 2025 (as confirmed to her by Tenancy Services), and that she later received bond lodgement confirmation dated 15 May 2025.
The tenancy ended on 7 November 2025. The tenant says a rent credit of $1,200 was received on 12 December 2025, but the bond has not been returned. The tenant seeks additional rent credit/overpayment relief, compensation, and exemplary damages. The Parties’ Positions
The tenant’s position is that the converted garage and adjacent shed formed part of the tenancy because the tenancy agreement lists only the address and does not exclude any area, and because of representations made at viewing and during early communications. The tenant says she was induced to enter the tenancy by assurances including a rent-free weekend, promises of being “looked after”, and a promise of relocation prior to demolition. The tenant says those assurances were not honoured.
The tenant alleges substantial failures to maintain and repair, including a collapsed garage ceiling, mould growth, leaks, and electrical hazards. The tenant relies on photographs as at 14 October 2025 and a timeline of communications.
The tenant says she paid full rent while being unable to use parts of the premises and while living with unresolved hazards. She seeks compensation for loss of amenity, and stress and inconvenience. She also seeks exemplary damages for what she says were unlawful acts, including late bond lodgement, failure to maintain, misleading statements about the premises and the garage, unlawful entry associated with the contractor visit, and failures to provide requested documentation. The tenant also seeks return of the bond, and to the extent bond return was delayed, she frames that as part of her broader claim of unfair handling by the landlord.
The landlord denies misrepresentation. It says the premises were not advertised for rent and the images the tenant relies on were from unrelated real estate advertising when the property was on the market for sale. The landlord says it was approached via a Ministry of Social Development broker seeking urgent accommodation and the property was offered temporarily pending demolition. The landlord says the garage and shed were not part of the tenancy, were padlocked, and access was only arranged because the tenant insisted on investigating a light she noticed. The property manager did not know the garage had been converted and cautioned the tenant it was unconsented and not liveable. The landlord says the tenant was permitted to use it as storage only after she persisted.
On the rent-free weekend, the landlord says that was conditional on the tenant accepting relocation when alternative properties were offered. The landlord says it offered relocation options, which the tenant did not accept, and therefore the condition was not met.
On the bond, the landlord disputes that it was unlawfully delayed. It says it lodged the bond within time or that any delay was caused by an internal MBIE issue, referring to an email dated 22 April 2025 indicating difficulty loading the bond. The landlord also says it is not seeking to retain the bond and supports full refund to the tenant.
On repairs, the landlord says defects relating to the garage and shed fall outside its obligations because those areas were not part of the tenancy. It says the shed was affected by severe weather and, in any event, demolition was intended. It characterises other issues as minor in the context of a property due for demolition.
On the contractor attendance, the landlord says it did not organise the soil testing visit and was unaware of it. Relevant Law
Section 45(1)(b) of the Act provides that a landlord shall provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
It is well settled that a landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) include investigating and repairing defects brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, the District Court confirmed that what is reasonable depends on the gravity of the problem and the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy it.
There is an obligation to repair even if the tenant knew of the state of repair when entering the tenancy agreement. A landlord cannot contract out of section 45 obligations.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the Act or relevant enactments relating to buildings, health and safety. The notice should be given in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach. Brough v Housing New Zealand Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need for repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. Barfoot and Thompson Limited v O’Connor DC Auckland CIV-2005-404-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4].
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. Astaire v Argus Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
Section 45(1)(bb) requires a landlord to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. Those standards are prescribed in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and establish minimum requirements relating to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping. In ordinary circumstances, a landlord must comply within 120 days from the start of the tenancy.
Section 19 requires bond to be lodged with Tenancy Services within 23 working days of receipt. Failure to do so is an unlawful act. Administrative difficulties may be relevant to penalty assessment but do not necessarily excuse non-compliance.
Section 48 regulates landlord entry. Unauthorised entry, or entry without required notice, may be an unlawful act. However, the tenant must prove the landlord or its agent entered in breach of the section or caused the entry.
Compensation may be awarded under section 77(2)(n) and is intended to restore the applicant to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. It requires proof of loss, which may include loss of amenity where a tenant pays rent but cannot fully use or enjoy the premises due to the landlord’s breach. The Tribunal must assess compensation objectively and proportionately, taking into account the nature, duration, and seriousness of the proven breach.
Exemplary damages may be awarded under section 77(2)(o) and section 109 where an unlawful act is established and punitive sanction is justified. Where exemplary damages are sought, the Tribunal must first be satisfied an unlawful act occurred and then must consider whether exemplary damages are warranted in the circumstances, applying section 109. The purpose of exemplary damages is punitive and deterrent; it is not compensatory. Analysis Scope of the Tenancy Premises: Garage and Shed
A central issue is whether the converted garage and the adjacent shed formed part of the tenancy premises. The tenant relies on the fact that the tenancy agreement states the address and does not expressly exclude the garage or shed. The landlord relies on the fact those areas were padlocked and not provided for the tenant’s use as part of the tenancy.
The Tribunal accepts that tenancy agreements often identify premises by address rather than mapping every area. However, the Tribunal must determine, as a matter of fact, what areas were granted for the tenant’s occupation and use under the agreement. The strongest contemporaneous evidence on this point is the physical control and access at the commencement of the tenancy and the parties’ conduct soon after.
The landlord’s evidence is that the garage was locked with a padlock and that access was not provided at commencement because it was not part of the tenancy. The tenant’s own account is consistent with the garage not being freely available at commencement, because she required a locksmith arranged by the landlord to gain access on 18 March 2025. The Tribunal considers it unlikely that a landlord would exclude a core tenancy space such as a garage while simultaneously intending it to be included in the tenancy without providing keys or access as of right.
The Tribunal also accepts the landlord’s explanation that access was arranged because the tenant insisted on investigating a light she had seen and that once the converted nature of the space became apparent, the property manager cautioned it was unconsented and not suitable for occupation. The tenant’s evidence that the property manager later referred to it as a “bonus” and said repairs were not guaranteed due to demolition is consistent with the landlord’s position that it was not treated as a contractual part of the premises but rather as an incidental space the tenant wanted to use.
On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal finds the converted garage and the shed were not part of the tenancy premises granted for the tenant’s use under the tenancy agreement. At most, the tenant was permitted limited storage use after the tenancy commenced. That does not convert the garage into part of the premises for which rent was charged or for which full section 45 repair obligations would necessarily attach in the same way as the main dwelling.
This finding has significant consequences. Claims based solely on defects within the garage or shed are not established as breaches of section 45 in relation to the rented premises. However, the Tribunal must separately address defects in the main dwelling and any other areas that were clearly part of the tenancy. Misrepresentation and Inducement
The tenant alleges misleading statements and inducements, including that the property was presented as having a double garage, later treated as “bonus” or excluded; that the first weekend would be rent-free; and that relocation would occur before demolition.
The landlord denies misrepresentation and says there was no rental advertising and that the images relied on were from unrelated Barfoot & Thompson advertising when the property was on the market for sale. The landlord also says the rent-free weekend was conditional upon the tenant accepting relocation when offered. The landlord accepts that it said it would “look after” the tenant and that relocation would be arranged prior to demolition, and it says it did make relocation offers which the tenant did not accept.
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is under the Act. It is clear from the evidence that there was a misrepresentation in relation to whether the tenant could charge her electric vehicle at the tenancy. That misrepresentation was relied upon by the tenant in entering the contract.
Section 78(1)(g) of the Act applies where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement has been induced by misrepresentation or mistake which does not accord with the true agreement. In this situation the Tribunal may set aside or vary the agreement.
In this case, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the tenant has proven, to the required standard, that the landlord represented the garage was part of the tenancy. The physical fact that the garage was padlocked and not accessible as of right at the start of the tenancy undermines the claim that it was granted as part of the tenancy. The tenant’s disappointment upon discovering the conversion is understandable, but it does not of itself establish a legally actionable misrepresentation under the Act.
As to the rent-free weekend, the Tribunal accepts the landlord’s evidence that this was conditional upon relocation acceptance. The tenant did not accept relocation options, and therefore the Tribunal is not satisfied a binding unconditional promise of free rent was made and breached.
As to relocation, the Tribunal accepts that the landlord did indicate the tenancy was temporary and that relocation would be considered before demolition. The landlord did offer relocation options. The tenant did not accept them. The Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant has proven the landlord breached a promise to relocate, as distinct from a disagreement over the suitability of the options offered.
Accordingly, the tenant has not established this claim in a way that results in compensation or exemplary damages under the Act.
The claim for misrepresentation and inducement is not established. No compensation is awarded and no exemplary damages are awarded on this ground. Failure to Maintain
The core issue concerns whether the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The Tribunal accepts that the garage and shed were not part of the tenancy. Accordingly, defects confined to those areas do not engage section 45 obligations.
, several issues raised in the 14-day notice and supported by photographs related to the main dwelling and sunroom areas, including electrical concerns, water leaks, mould, windbreaker instability, and shower door issues.
Under Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the landlord was required to investigate and repair within a reasonable timeframe. The tenant issued a 14-day notice on 16 May 2025. There is limited evidence of timely investigation or effective remediation thereafter.
The landlord relied heavily on the fact that demolition was imminent. However, section 45(1)(b) expressly requires maintenance having regard to the age and character of the premises and the likely period of habitability. The fact that demolition was planned does not extinguish maintenance obligations while the tenancy continues.
Barfoot and Thompson Limited v O’Connor confirms that formal notice is not even required where defects are obvious. Here, water ingress, mould growth and electrical concerns were sufficiently serious to require action.
Astaire v Argus Trust confirms that ineffective or unsafe repair amounts to failure to repair. In this case, there is insufficient evidence that effective repair occurred before the tenancy ended.
On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal finds that the landlord breached section 45(1)(b) in relation to the main dwelling areas.
The Tribunal does not accept compensation based on the garage, as it was not part of the tenancy. However, ongoing unresolved defects in the main dwelling justify compensation.
Given the rent of $700 per week and the evidence of prolonged inconvenience, the Tribunal considers a weeks’ rent of $700 compensation reasonable and proportionate. Healthy Homes Standards
Section 45(1)(bb) requires compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards. Ordinarily, compliance is required within 120 days from the start of the tenancy.
The landlord asserts exemption due to demolition and has provided photographs showing the property has since been demolished, with bare land remaining. The earlier retaliatory notice decision accepted that redevelopment was genuine and supported by resource consent.
The Tribunal accepts that the landlord qualified for the demolition exemption under the Healthy Homes Regulations. Accordingly, failure to meet regulatory heating, insulation or ventilation metrics is not established.
However, the Healthy Homes exemption does not displace the general repair obligations under section 45(1)(b). Safety defects and water ingress remain actionable regardless of exemption.
No separate breach of section 45(1)(bb) is established beyond the maintenance breach already identified. Bond Lodgement and Delay
Section 19 requires bond to be lodged within 23 working days.
landlord states that any delay was due to MBIE system issues and provides email evidence of loading difficulties.
The Tribunal is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was a culpable unlawful act warranting exemplary damages.
The landlord has stated it does not seek to retain the bond and supports full refund. The Tribunal therefore orders the bond of $2,800 be refunded in full to the tenant. To the extent the tenant raised delay as an independent wrong, the Tribunal notes that bond refund processes can be affected by disputes and procedural steps. Here, given the landlord supports full refund, the appropriate order is refund, rather than additional compensation for delay, especially where the tenant’s broader claims for delay-related compensation were not proven with the specificity required.
No compensation or exemplary damages are awarded. Failure to Provide Documentation and Information
The tenant requested a broad set of documents, including Healthy Homes exemption and consents, insurance policy, property condition report, smoke alarm statement, chattels confirmation, pet bond explanation, and clarification of included and excluded areas.
The Tribunal distinguishes between requests that are required by the Act and requests that may be understandable but are not legally required to be produced. The Act and associated regulations require certain statements in tenancy agreements and impose some information obligations, including Healthy Homes- related statements. Here, the tenancy agreement contained an exemption statement based on intended demolition and having applied for relevant consent. The tenant later received the resource consent information.
The landlord is not required under the Act to provide its insurance policy to a tenant on demand. A property condition report may be best practice and is often significant evidence, but the Act does not automatically make the absence of a jointly signed condition report a compensable breach unless a specific statutory requirement is engaged and loss is proven. Smoke alarm compliance is required in practice, but a tenant’s request for “expiry dates” or separate statements is not necessarily an enforceable documentation obligation beyond statutory compliance itself.
On the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant has proven a discrete unlawful act or compensable breach arising solely from non-provision of the requested documents. Some of the requests were, in effect, litigation discovery requests rather than statutory entitlements. The landlord’s reliance on demolition as a reason to refuse was not a legally complete answer, but the tenant has not established the legal foundation for compensation or exemplary damages on this head.
This claim is not established. Unannounced Contractor and Unlawful Entry
The tenant alleges that a contractor attended unannounced on 26 May 2025 to conduct soil testing. The landlord says it was unaware of that visit and did not organise it. The tenant bears the burden of proving unlawful entry attributable to the landlord. The tenant has not produced evidence that the landlord authorised or arranged the entry, or that the person who attended entered the premises as opposed to conducting external testing, or that the landlord failed to provide required notice.
In the absence of evidence linking the attendance to landlord action or establishing entry in breach of section 48, the Tribunal is not satisfied the unlawful entry claim is proven.
This claim is not established. Rent Credit, Overpayments, and the Rent-Free Weekend
The tenant claimed rent credit and overpayment totalling $1,400. It is now confirmed that the tenant received a $1,200 rent credit on 12 December 2025. The tenant accepts that the remaining component of this claim was not established. The Tribunal therefore makes no further order for rent credit beyond what has already been provided.
The tenant also alleges a rent-free weekend amounting to an additional $200. The landlord’s evidence is that the rent-free weekend was conditional upon relocation acceptance. The Tribunal accepts that the landlord did offer relocation options and that the tenant did not accept them. The Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant has proven an unconditional rent-free entitlement.
No further rent repayment is ordered. Stress and Emotional Impact
The Tribunal accepts the tenant experienced stress and frustration. The Tribunal also accepts that living with unresolved defects, particularly safety-related issues, can be distressing and destabilising for a family. However, the Tribunal’s compensatory jurisdiction under the Act is not a general damages jurisdiction for emotional distress. The appropriate remedy is compensation for proven loss of amenity and inconvenience connected to proven breaches. The Tribunal considers the $700 compensation award addresses that aspect in a fair and proportionate way.
No separate award is made for stress alone. Pattern of Conduct Evidence
The tenant produced a public review and a prior Tribunal order involving the same property manager, offered as evidence of a pattern. The Tribunal treats this evidence with caution. Each dispute must be determined on its own facts. Generalised pattern evidence does not establish breach in this tenancy. The Tribunal has not relied on this material to determine liability. Liability of the agent
I am satisfied that The Worx Property Management Limited was acting as an agent in all respects of the tenancy and in the capacity as the landlord. Therefore, this is a situation where it is appropriate for both the owner and the agent to be liable to the tenant as landlord.
The parties will have to resolve between themselves who ultimately bears the burden of the costs ordered. Filing fee and Suppression order
As the tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful, she is not entitled to refund of the application fee under section 102(4).
The applicant seeks name suppression. The Tribunal may grant suppression under section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 if satisfied that publication would cause undue hardship or would otherwise be contrary to the interests of justice. The threshold is high. Suppression is not granted merely because publication may cause embarrassment, inconvenience, or reputational concern.
In this case, while the applicant has described stress and financial difficulty arising from the tenancy, there is no evidence that publication of her name would cause undue hardship beyond that ordinarily associated with Tribunal proceedings. Nor is there evidence of safety risks, vulnerability of an exceptional nature, or other circumstances that would justify departure from the principle of open justice.
The application for suppression is therefore declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5278653 — Tenancy dispute at 3 Ewbank Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5278653 — Tenancy dispute at 3 Ewbank Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

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