How much money was awarded in case 5281563?

Compensation: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Immediately, Being: $1,240.00 awarded to landlord; Repayment Of Rent: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5281563?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5281563?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12329822-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5281563?

Compensation: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Immediately, Being: $1,240.00 awarded to landlord; Repayment Of Rent: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5281563?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5281563?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12329822-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room 4, 17B Suffolk Street, Phillipstown, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5281563 — Leaks

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5281563 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5281563. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
immediately, being	$1,240.00	immediately, being
repayment of rent	$200.00	repayment of rent
compensation and	$27.00	compensation and

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Sunshine Housing Limited and Fang Shi must pay [the tenant] $1,467.00 immediately, being $1,240 repayment of rent, $200 compensation and $27 filing fee.

The Good Girls Property Management Limited must pay [the tenant] $200 compensation immediately.

Reasons

All parties attended or were represented at the hearing.

The tenant claims compensation and exemplary damages for various alleged breaches by the respondents of their obligations.

During the hearing the Good Girls agreed to pay $200 to the tenant in relation to the work that she carried out to the premises during the tenancy.

Sunshine Housing, on behalf of the landlord they represented, agreed to pay the tenant $1,040 being rent refunded for the period that the premises were uninhabitable. Background

The tenancy began in 2019. The tenancy agreement stated it was a boarding housing agreement.

The premises consist of a bedroom with an ensuite bathroom and shared use of a communal area comprising a kitchen and dining/living area. There are five such bedrooms in the unit.

Normally, each room is occupied by only one tenant. To be a boarding house premises must be occupied or intended to be occupied by at least 6 tenants at any one time. It follows that this is not a boarding house. The respondents accept that.

The premises were sold in 2025. Settlement occurred around the middle of May. The Good Girls took over management of the tenancy on behalf of the new owner around that time.

Sunshine were the property managers on behalf of the previous owner, Fang Shi. They confirmed that Fang Shi could be added as a respondent to the application.

On 21 March 2025, the tenant sent an email to sunshine asking for permission to replace the bed in her room because it was in poor condition. The response was not to do anything because the property was being sold. A new property manager at Sunshine was more helpful but by the time he got involved, the tenant had moved out because she found the room unliveable.

Friends of the tenant became involved and because of a concern that the tenant would be liable for damage to the premises, they carried out some remedial work to the room including replacing the carpet and painting. The tenant seeks a contribution to the cost of replacing the underlay which was damaged by water leaking from a damaged bathroom basin.

The Good Girls did not seek payment of rent from the tenant after they took over because they recognised that the room was not habitable. Relevant Law

Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.

Section 40(1)(d) of the Act requires a tenant to notify the landlord of any damage to the premises or the need for any repairs.

In general, before the landlord comes under an obligation to carry out repairs, they must be aware of the need for them. That will usually occur when the tenant informs them of the need.

Section 60AA of the Act prohibits a landlord from giving a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.

The Tribunal can award exemplary damages for breach of ss45 and 60AA. Claims – Discussion and Decision

An unusual feature in this case is that the landlord did not conduct any inspections during the tenancy. There is no obligation to do so, but it is usual to do so. They therefore relied on the tenant to report any maintenance issues.

Water leaked from the bathroom basin during the tenancy damaging a door and carpet underlay. There had been temporary repair to the basin at some time which failed. It is likely, in my view, that the tenant was aware that water was leaking from the basin and, at least potentially, causing damage to the premises.

The tenant was reluctant to complain which is illustrated by her complaint about her bed, which she said was a “bit worn”. It was, in fact, barely usable.

The tenant’s friends kindly came to her aid and carried out repairs to the room which they did not expect the landlord to pay for. After they found the damaged underlay and, what they believed to be the cause of the damage - the leaking basin - they sought some compensation from the landlord.

There are two problems with that claim. One is that it is likely, in my view, that the damage may have been avoided if the tenant had reported the leaking basin. The other is that the Act provides for tenants carrying out repairs in very specific circumstances. Essentially it must be an emergency and the landlord must be informed and given an opportunity to do the repairs. Neither of those things apply in this case.

It follows that the Tribunal has no ability to order compensation in relation to the tenant’s repairs.

The tenant sought relief from rent because the room was uninhabitable. That then raises the question of why it was uninhabitable which puts the focus on the leaking basin and the tenant’s responsibility to report it.

I find that in all the circumstances the first landlord’s offer to repay four weeks rent is reasonable. Although they were under no obligation to inspect, the temporary repair of the basin and the absence of any subsequent inspection contributed to the situation that eventuated. No additional remedy is appropriate.

I accept that the first landlord was slow to respond to the tenant’s complaint about the bed. That could and should have been resolved within a week. I have therefore awarded compensation of $200 for that breach and the consequences it had for the tenant.

The second landlord’s termination notice was not retaliatory, in my view. I accept that the landlord could see that the premises needed substantial work to put it into a lettable condition and they saw the notice as the best way to achieve that.

But it was an invalid notice and so that opens the way for an award of exemplary damages.

The landlord says that they inherited a boarding house tenancy agreement and so the notice seemed appropriate. They said that they had not had time to assess the situation after taking over and so could not conclude that the tenancy was not a boarding house tenancy. Whilst the parties did sign a boarding house agreement, I am sceptical of that argument.

The landlord said that they were acting in the tenant’s best interests. I note that a better way of doing that would have been to offer to release the tenant from the tenancy.

After the tenant received the notice, she obtained advice from Tenancy Services and rejected the notice. The parties then agreed to end the tenancy without the tenant having any liability for rent to the second landlord. That was plainly a relief for the tenant.

In all the circumstances I find that an award of exemplary damages is not warranted for the notice. This was an untidy situation and, apart from the notice, the Good Girls have acted reasonably.

The result is that Good Girls will pay the tenant $200 as agreed and the first landlord will pay $1,240 as agreed plus $200 compensation for the bed and the $27 filing fee. The bond will be returned to the tenant.

The tenant has had substantial success and so I have granted her name suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5281563. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
immediately, being	$1,240.00	immediately, being
repayment of rent	$200.00	repayment of rent
compensation and	$27.00	compensation and