What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5289219 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 5289219?

Compensation: Power rebate for May 2…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,314.29 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $891.43 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $240.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $685.71 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $814.29 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5289219?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5289219?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12817337-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5289219 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 5289219?

Compensation: Power rebate for May 2…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,314.29 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $891.43 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $240.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $685.71 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $814.29 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5289219?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5289219?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12817337-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5289219 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5289219 — net $4,972.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
General damages: Failure to maintain- heat pump and wood pellet burner	$1,314.29	General damages: Failure to maintain- heat pump and wood pellet burner
Compensation: Power rebate for May 2025	$100.00	Power rebate for May 2025
General damages: Failure to maintain- holes in kitchen floor	$891.43	General damages: Failure to maintain- holes in kitchen floor
General damages: Failure to maintain- power sockets/points	$240.00	General damages: Failure to maintain- power sockets/points
General damages: Failure to maintain-Oven 1	$685.71	General damages: Failure to maintain-Oven 1
General damages: Oven 2	$814.29	General damages: Oven 2
Exemplary damages: Oven 2 at 1/8th of maximum	$900.00	63. I am also satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay $900.00 in exemplary damages (one eighth of the maximum penalty available) for the seco…
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,972.72
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,972.72

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5289219 — net $4,972.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
General damages: Failure to maintain- heat pump and wood pellet burner	$1,314.29	General damages: Failure to maintain- heat pump and wood pellet burner
Compensation: Power rebate for May 2025	$100.00	Power rebate for May 2025
General damages: Failure to maintain- holes in kitchen floor	$891.43	General damages: Failure to maintain- holes in kitchen floor
General damages: Failure to maintain- power sockets/points	$240.00	General damages: Failure to maintain- power sockets/points
General damages: Failure to maintain-Oven 1	$685.71	General damages: Failure to maintain-Oven 1
General damages: Oven 2	$814.29	General damages: Oven 2
Exemplary damages: Oven 2 at 1/8th of maximum	$900.00	63. I am also satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay $900.00 in exemplary damages (one eighth of the maximum penalty available) for the seco…
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,972.72
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,972.72

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Crystal Realty Limited T/A Harcourts As Agent For Nnds Ltd must pay [The tenant] $4,972.72 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today.
The tenant applies for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. Background
The house the tenant is renting is to be demolished as part of a redevelopment of [addresses suppressed]. These properties will be developed into 29 freehold residential lots and a commonly owned access lot.
Initially the owners intended to commence this development at the end of the tenant’s 12-month fixed term tenancy.
As the market moved, things changed, and the owners decided to push out the development by 2 to 3 years. At this time the property manager got a healthy homes report done, on 27 July 2023 and ensured the property was healthy homes complaint by 30 July 2023.
The landlord confirmed that the fact the property will be demolished has impacted its repair and maintenance decisions, in that it often has repaired or replaced with second hand items to save costs and was reluctant to install insulation and a ground moisture barrier when the intention originally was for the house to be demolished around April/May 2024.The landlord stated that the tenant was informed of this when she first viewed the house and took on the tenancy. However, the landlord says it never intended to breach its legal obligations to the tenant but accepts that at times repair and maintenance issues took longer than they should to address while the owners weighed up what had to be done versus what the tenant would like to have done for cosmetic reasons or reasons that went beyond the owners legal obligations under the RTA. TENANT’S CLAIMS Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b) and (bb) obligations to the tenant?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Breaching either of these s45(1) obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain
The tenant gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. Heating
The tenant confirmed, the heat pump was not working when the tenancy commenced but there was a 5kW fixed wood pellet burner that worked for the first winter of the tenancy but had started to develop some issues in April/May 2024.
When the chimney sweep came to clean and check the wood pellet burner and chimney on 8 May 2024, he told the tenant that was the last season for the fireplace as the plate was very brittle and needed to be replaced. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
The tenant says she used it one more time, but it did not work well and was not heating. The landlord says this was not conveyed to it, but confirmed the tenant had told it what the chimney sweep had reported to her but not it. The landlord took from this information that it would have to address the heating issue from the winter of 2025, being from around April/May/June 2025 when the weather begins to get colder.
I accept that the landlord knew it had to address the heating deficit by around 1 May 2025 and that the tenant had talked to the property manager around April/May 2025 during a property inspection. I note the property manager could not give me the exact date of the property inspection.
The parties confirmed that a new heat pump was installed on 1 August 2025. This means the tenant was without a means of heating the living room of the house from 1 May to 1 August 2025.
I am satisfied the landlord did not take steps to get the heating issue addressed in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and consequently the tenant was forced to make the decision for her and her child to live in a cold house from 1 May to 1 August 2025 or pay additional power to run oil column filled heaters. She chose the oil column filled heaters, but her power bill shows she used $100.00 more power in May 2025 than in the three months either side. By June and July 2025, she chose to be cold rather than incur more costs she could not afford to heat the house. The tenant also suffered a lack of amenity, stress and inconvenience for an amenity she was paying rent to enjoy.
I find the tenant should receive a rent rebate for the period she lived without a means of safe and effective heating being provided by the landlord. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $100.00 per week for the period 1 May 2025 to 1 August 2025 (13 weeks and 1 day) being a rent rebate of $1,314.29 ordered. Additionally, I award the tenant $100.00 compensation for the additional power consumed in May 2025.
As this claim was first raised around 8 May 2024, the tenant is barred by s109(2)(b) of the RTA for claiming exemplary damages for this breach, because this provision places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. The application was made on 18 June 2025, more than 12 months after 8 May 2024. Holes in kitchen floor
The tenant claims there were holes in kitchen floor that let draughts into the house that caused the tenant and her daughter health issues. Further, her daughter fell through one of those holes and hurt herself on at least one occasion.
The evidence produced by the tenant proves she first raised this issue on 18 July 2023 by text to the landlord and again in a 14-day notice on 25 July 2023.
The parties confirmed the floorboards were replaced and/or repaired on 4 September 2023.
The tenant says the issue was not fully resolved, as the lino was still worn and needed replacing as the floorboards were all exposed and this was draughty. The landlord claims there was no draught issues and that the lack of lino was cosmetic as protecting the floorboards from stains water damage was not an issue for it.
On 1 October 2024, the tenant sent a text about the lino issue to the landlord and on around 18 July 2025 the flooring issue was fully resolved.
I am satisfied the landlord did not take steps to get the holes in the kitchen floor addressed in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and consequently the tenant and her child were exposed to draughts and safety issues such as falling through the floorboards causing injury. The tenant also suffered a lack of amenity, stress and inconvenience for an amenity she was paying rent to enjoy.
I find the tenant should receive a rent rebate for the period she lived with the holes in the kitchen floorboards but not for the period she lived without lino. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $130.00 per week for the period 18 July 2023 to 4 September 2023 (6 weeks and 6 days) being a rent rebate of $891.43 ordered.
As this claim was first raised on 18 July 2023, the tenant is barred by s109(2)(b) of the RTA for claiming exemplary damages for this breach, because this provision places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. The application was made on 18 June 2025, more than 12 months after 18 July 2023. Backdoor glass
The parties confirmed the door near the kitchen was fully glass with a wooden frame around the glass and after it was broken by the tenant the landlord put wood into the frame to make it a solid door. This was done on 18 July 2023, the same day as it was reported to the landlord.
The tenant says only half the glass panel was boarded up and so she put a cloth over it as there were draughts. The landlord denies this and says there was a full board in the centre of the frame. The tenant had no photographic evidence to support this claim and the landlord’s photographic evidence does nt prove or disprove this claim.
I find that there is insufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. I therefore dismiss this claim. Electrical plug outlets
The tenant claims there were power points in the lounge and kitchen and bedroom 1 that were not working and the power points in the kitchen needed covers.
The evidence produced by the tenant proves she first raised this issue by text on 1 October 2024 and that the issue was not resolved until 12 November 2024.
The parties confirmed the floorboards were replaced and/or repaired on 4 September 2023.
I am satisfied the landlord did not take steps to get the faulty power points addressed in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and consequently the tenant suffered a lack of amenity, stress and inconvenience.
I find the tenant should receive a rent rebate for the period she lived with the holes in the kitchen floorboards but not for the period she lived without the use of these power outlets. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $40.00 per week for the period 1 October 2024 to 12 November 2024 (6 weeks) being a rent rebate of $240.00 ordered.
I do not find that this breach was intentional. The evidence suggests it took some time for the landlord to arrange an electrician to complete the work. Therefore, there is no justification for the award of exemplary damages. Hallway flooring
The tenant says she first raised the issue of the floor covering over the repaired floorboards on 18 July 2023 by text and in the tenant’s 25 July 2023 14-day notice.
The parties confirmed the floorboards were repaired on 10 July 2023 and some additional work was done on 4 September 2023.
I find that there is insufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. I therefore dismiss this claim. Roof leaks around fireplace
The tenant says the roof leaked around the fireplace in the heavy rain. She had nonwritten evidence to prove when or if she raised this issue with the landlord. She claims she would have called the landlord or told it at a house inspection about this issue but had no real idea when she raised it.
The tenant stated the leak must have been fixed in July 2025, when the other issues were addressed, as there had been no leaks since then.
The landlord stated this issue had never been raised and there had been no investigation or remediation so it is unsure why there would be no further leaks since July 2025 when there has been some very heavy rain in west Auckland recently.
I find that there is insufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. I therefore dismiss this claim. Oven
The tenant says she first raised an issue with the oven not heating properly on 18 July 2023 by text, as she could not really bake food in it. She raised this issue again in her 25 July 2023 14-day notice. The landlord confirmed it was a thermostat issue that affected the temperature.
The thermostat issue was resolved on 4 September 2023 when the landlord installed a second-hand oven.
The tenant states the glass door on this second oven was made of heavy glass that had slipped down had broken off slightly. The tenant states she couldn’t leave the oven door open as there was not enough weight to hold it down. The parties confirmed the tenant raised this issue in the May/June 2025 inspection although the tenant thinks she may have raised this earlier at other inspections.
The second oven was replaced with a third oven that is fit for purpose, on 4 September 2025.
I am satisfied the landlord did not take steps to get the faulty ovens addressed in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and consequently the tenant suffered a lack of amenity, stress and inconvenience of having an oven that was not fit for purpose from 18 July 2023 to 4 September 2025.
I find the tenant should receive a rent rebate for the following periods: a. 18 July 2023 to 4 September 2023 (6 weeks and 6 days) at $100.00 per week being a total rent rebate of $685.71 b. 1 June 2025 to 4 September 2025 (13 weeks and 4 days) at $60.00 per week being a total rent rebate of $814.29.
I am also satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay $900.00 in exemplary damages (one eighth of the maximum penalty available) for the second breach because: a. the landlord knew the oven door was faulty and could not stay open and failed to have it repaired or replaced in a reasonable timeframe to save the owners money; b. the tenant suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with the loss of the amenity and of having to follow the landlord up and remind it of its obligations under the RTA ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity for 13 weeks and 4 days; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.
I make an order for the landlord to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s48(2) (d) of the RTA. accordingly.
As the first breach was first raised around 18 July 2023, the tenant is barred by s109(2)(b) of the RTA for claiming exemplary damages for this breach, because this provision places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. The application was made on 18 June 2025, more than 12 months after 18 July 2023. Hole in hallway cupboard and mould
The tenant stated she had no idea when this was raised with the landlord but thinks she raised it during inspections. The landlord does not know about this issue, but the tenant says it was fixed in July 2025 with a number of other repair and maintenance issues.
I find that there is insufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. I therefore dismiss this claim. Insulation
The tenant became aware of there being no underfloor or ceiling insulation on 27 July 2023 when the healthy homes assessor showed the tenant there was no insulation under the floor and in the roof. The tenant stated that this explained why the house was very cold as this combined with no ground moisture barrier and no efficient heating made the house extremely cold.
The parties confirmed that by 30 July 2023, insulation was installed, and a ground moisture barrier.
I find that there is insufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. I therefore dismiss this claim. Failure to meet healthy homes standards
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 20 April 2023. Therefore, the landlord had 120 days from the commencement date to comply with all of the healthy homes’ standards, being Friday, 18 August 2023.
The landlord has produced invoices, two healthy homes reports and photographs that prove the premise was fully healthy homes complaint by 30 July 2025. Therefore, the tenants claims for breaches of the heating, insulation, ventilation, heating, and moisture ingress and drainage standards fail and must be dismissed. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name Suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has substantially succeeded in her proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5289219 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5289219 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions