What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5298539 about?

The tribunal order states: Summit Property Management Limited as agent for Criag Marshall and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $1,448.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5298539?

Compensation: $1,420.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5298539?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5298539?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12523982-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5298539 about?

The tribunal order states: Summit Property Management Limited as agent for Criag Marshall and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $1,448.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5298539?

Compensation: $1,420.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5298539?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5298539?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12523982-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

28 Dodson Valley Road, Atawhai, Nelson 7010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5298539 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5298539 — net $1,448.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,420.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,448.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,448.00

Order

Summit Property Management Limited as agent for Criag Marshall and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $1,448.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The property manager acting for the owner at commencement no longer works for the agency. The owner lived locally and was a presence during the tenancy as well as the agent.
The tenant sought compensation of $1,680.00 after a series of claimed impacts on her tenancy due to landlord failures, being external scaffolding erected and then later stored on site, a lack of notice regarding contractor activities, asbestos testing, laundry flooding, and unlawful entry.
This tenancy commenced 6 February 2025. It ended early than anticipated via tenant notice, on 3 June 2025. The tenant claimed this was due to the proceeding adverse events making it untenable to continue. The tenant claims Scaffolding/roof cleaning
The tenant claims she was surprised to discover very earlier in the tenancy that the house would be scaffolded in preparation for a house paint and other activities.
The landlord submitted the agent at the time of the showing (the tenant viewed with others via an open home) advised all prospective tenants of this intended activity.
The tenant was adamantly she was never told.
I prefer the tenant version. It is easy to envisage a situation where an agent conducting an open home may fail to advise all visitors even as intended. Further, I place some further weighing on an email to the tenant from the landlord on 17 February 2025 that stated, “The owner has let me know yesterday that he has engaged painters to paint the outside of the house with scaffolding going up today”. The wording in the email is suggestive of less timely notice than claimed by the landlord.
I note a prior file note from the agent, shortly after her email to the tenant, recorded a call between her and the tenant with the tenant asking her about scaffolding as she was not aware of any work. However that conversation ended, there was a positive email response from the tenant later that same date, stating she thought she had “the best landlords”.
The scaffolding was the first stage of a planned external maintenance project that led to further activities that impacted the tenant.
With hindsight, the extent of the work, and unreasonable impact on the tenant, was most efficiently dealt with by the work being conducted by the landlord while the premises was vacant. The attraction of income during this period for the landlord can be understood but there was no obvious reflection of obvious adverse impacts from the work on the tenant by way of any rent reduction or other compensation. I consider it unrealistic for the landlord to expect full rent from commencement when significant work was pending and undertaken so soon after the tenancy commenced.
The duration of the scaffolding being on place was longer than expected. It was taken down but stored on-site, after the tenant requested it come down due to lack of activity (for reasons covered below). The delay was not due to unforeseen weather events but a delayed due to concerns about possible asbestos. Asbestos testing
The tenant became concerned regarding an unidentified residue on the external fibre weather board. This concerned was relayed to the landlord but the tenant proceeded to have it tested for possible asbestos “immediately”. Based on the landlord timeline, the identification of the possible risk occurred 21 March and the sample was tested 26 March. This tenant instigated testing was at a cost of $300.00. Work was delayed pending the results. The parties disagree regarding the exact wording around the problem and testing, the landlord stating it was confirmed to it as positive at the time, the tenant stating is was a concern expressed with test results pending.
There is no explicit requirement in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) or related regulations that a landlord must test for asbestos if it is likely to be present. However, landlords do have general obligations regarding health and safety.
Under section 45(1)(c) of the RTA, landlords must comply with all building, health, and safety requirements that apply to the premises.
If there is reasonable cause to suspect asbestos is present and poses a risk to health (for example, if the material is damaged or likely to be disturbed), the landlord may be required to investigate further to meet their obligations under the RTA and the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.
When a tenant raises concerns about possible asbestos, the landlord should take those concerns seriously and consider whether an assessment or testing is necessary to ensure the premises are safe.
If asbestos is present but is in good condition and undisturbed, it may not pose a risk. However, if it is likely to be disturbed (e.g., during renovations or repairs such as occurring here), the landlord should seek professional advice and may need to arrange testing and, if necessary, removal by a licensed professional.
If there is a reasonable risk to health, landlords should investigate, which may include testing.
I consider the tenant “jumped the gun” in arranging her own testing but the evidence was sufficient to raise reasonable concerns that would have required some testing by the landlord. The subsequent cost and delay would have been incurred regardless. I note the tenant did not directly seek reimbursement but this cost has been considered in the general compensation determination. The agent acknowledged at the hearing that once the concern was raised in such circumstances, they would have recommended to the owner, or instigated themselves appropriate testing.
This event was another example of the challenges in undertaking significant works during a tenancy when the window was such that they could have been completed quicker and possibly cheaper with a vacated premises. Entry
The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice, or allowed other access. This section considers entry and actions of contractors via their notice, and a separate event when the tenant believes the owner permitted access to the inside of the premises.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant was contacted directly by contractors regarding their activities. The intended timings were at times vague, or at short notice. However, the tenant accommodated their requests within reason.
Tasks such as the erection of scaffolding and roof washing were either notified or permission granted but the planned activities that caused some tenant surprise should have been better and more clearly communicated. These tasks impacted the tenant’s use of the premises and lawns and gardens, as well as leaving unexpected mess or residue as shown in photos by the tenant.
The tenant was absent for a period of time in April 2025 for medical treatment. During this period external activities continued. The tenant was concerned that during this time the owner house keys were used or provided and later left in the mailbox by the painter. She believes on her return there was some sign of internal entry. Given the nature of the external work, and no clear need for entry for that work, why entry occurred.
This is potentially a serious breach. The release of keys by the owner as claimed (the agent keys were not released at that time) should not have occurred. The owner was not present at the hearing but was aware of the application and claims.
I have considered previous instances when the tenant had generously accommodated requests and volunteered leaving the “back door open” to assist contractors. This, and uncertain discussions between the landlord, tenant, and the tenant’s daughter around that time mean I do not consider it established that an unlawful act was permitted such that any exemplary damages might follow. I do consider that the tenant concern about uncontrolled entry without notice in her absence had some justification. Other matters
The tenant raised a flooding event in the laundry when the agent tested a tap connected to the washing machine. I accept the agent was conducting an appropriate test as part of a routine inspection and the result was not something that could be reasonably anticipated. I do not consider this event merits any specific compensation.
Equally, the shower blockage is not considered an event that merits any special consideration of compensation.
Any outgoings incurred by the tenant via the activities are not deemed significant or have been compensated.
The tenant believes the owner has blamed her for delays in the task completion. The insertion of a new tenancy just before the tasks commenced, in my view, contributed to the delays that might have been anticipated. Any costs incurred by such delays was offset by rental income taken versus an empty premises.
Lastly, the privacy breach of previous tenant details as recounted by the tenant was an unfortunate breach by the agency but it is not considered a significant breach here, nor of any impact on this tenant that merits specific orders.

Should compensation be awarded?

Section 77(2)(n) RTA allows the Tribunal to grant general damages where a landlord or a tenant has breached a provision of the RTA. These damages can include an amount for distress and pain and suffering.
In Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993 (upheld in the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust, CIV-2018-009-002094 [2020] NZDC 17667) sets out the factors that the Tribunal should take into account when making a damages award, being: a. The nature of the breaches b. The duration of the breaches c. The effect of the breaches.
Having considered the evidenced impacts on the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and her loss of amenity due to the landlord instigated activities, as well as it is being more than likely that she accepted the tenancy without prior notice of the pending works, some compensation is appropriate.
I have based compensation of a return of two weeks rent, totalling $1,120.00 and a further $300.00 as general compensation for the cost and impact of the asbestos testing on the tenant, as well as her earlier than expected exit from this tenancy. These two awards total $1,420.00. This amount returned to the tenant is approximately 15% of her rent paid during the tenancy. That is considered reasonable taking into account the three factors to be considered as posed in the Birch decision. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5298539 — net $1,448.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,420.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,448.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,448.00

Order

Summit Property Management Limited as agent for Criag Marshall and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $1,448.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The property manager acting for the owner at commencement no longer works for the agency. The owner lived locally and was a presence during the tenancy as well as the agent.
The tenant sought compensation of $1,680.00 after a series of claimed impacts on her tenancy due to landlord failures, being external scaffolding erected and then later stored on site, a lack of notice regarding contractor activities, asbestos testing, laundry flooding, and unlawful entry.
This tenancy commenced 6 February 2025. It ended early than anticipated via tenant notice, on 3 June 2025. The tenant claimed this was due to the proceeding adverse events making it untenable to continue. The tenant claims Scaffolding/roof cleaning
The tenant claims she was surprised to discover very earlier in the tenancy that the house would be scaffolded in preparation for a house paint and other activities.
The landlord submitted the agent at the time of the showing (the tenant viewed with others via an open home) advised all prospective tenants of this intended activity.
The tenant was adamantly she was never told.
I prefer the tenant version. It is easy to envisage a situation where an agent conducting an open home may fail to advise all visitors even as intended. Further, I place some further weighing on an email to the tenant from the landlord on 17 February 2025 that stated, “The owner has let me know yesterday that he has engaged painters to paint the outside of the house with scaffolding going up today”. The wording in the email is suggestive of less timely notice than claimed by the landlord.
I note a prior file note from the agent, shortly after her email to the tenant, recorded a call between her and the tenant with the tenant asking her about scaffolding as she was not aware of any work. However that conversation ended, there was a positive email response from the tenant later that same date, stating she thought she had “the best landlords”.
The scaffolding was the first stage of a planned external maintenance project that led to further activities that impacted the tenant.
With hindsight, the extent of the work, and unreasonable impact on the tenant, was most efficiently dealt with by the work being conducted by the landlord while the premises was vacant. The attraction of income during this period for the landlord can be understood but there was no obvious reflection of obvious adverse impacts from the work on the tenant by way of any rent reduction or other compensation. I consider it unrealistic for the landlord to expect full rent from commencement when significant work was pending and undertaken so soon after the tenancy commenced.
The duration of the scaffolding being on place was longer than expected. It was taken down but stored on-site, after the tenant requested it come down due to lack of activity (for reasons covered below). The delay was not due to unforeseen weather events but a delayed due to concerns about possible asbestos. Asbestos testing
The tenant became concerned regarding an unidentified residue on the external fibre weather board. This concerned was relayed to the landlord but the tenant proceeded to have it tested for possible asbestos “immediately”. Based on the landlord timeline, the identification of the possible risk occurred 21 March and the sample was tested 26 March. This tenant instigated testing was at a cost of $300.00. Work was delayed pending the results. The parties disagree regarding the exact wording around the problem and testing, the landlord stating it was confirmed to it as positive at the time, the tenant stating is was a concern expressed with test results pending.
There is no explicit requirement in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) or related regulations that a landlord must test for asbestos if it is likely to be present. However, landlords do have general obligations regarding health and safety.
Under section 45(1)(c) of the RTA, landlords must comply with all building, health, and safety requirements that apply to the premises.
If there is reasonable cause to suspect asbestos is present and poses a risk to health (for example, if the material is damaged or likely to be disturbed), the landlord may be required to investigate further to meet their obligations under the RTA and the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.
When a tenant raises concerns about possible asbestos, the landlord should take those concerns seriously and consider whether an assessment or testing is necessary to ensure the premises are safe.
If asbestos is present but is in good condition and undisturbed, it may not pose a risk. However, if it is likely to be disturbed (e.g., during renovations or repairs such as occurring here), the landlord should seek professional advice and may need to arrange testing and, if necessary, removal by a licensed professional.
If there is a reasonable risk to health, landlords should investigate, which may include testing.
I consider the tenant “jumped the gun” in arranging her own testing but the evidence was sufficient to raise reasonable concerns that would have required some testing by the landlord. The subsequent cost and delay would have been incurred regardless. I note the tenant did not directly seek reimbursement but this cost has been considered in the general compensation determination. The agent acknowledged at the hearing that once the concern was raised in such circumstances, they would have recommended to the owner, or instigated themselves appropriate testing.
This event was another example of the challenges in undertaking significant works during a tenancy when the window was such that they could have been completed quicker and possibly cheaper with a vacated premises. Entry
The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice, or allowed other access. This section considers entry and actions of contractors via their notice, and a separate event when the tenant believes the owner permitted access to the inside of the premises.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant was contacted directly by contractors regarding their activities. The intended timings were at times vague, or at short notice. However, the tenant accommodated their requests within reason.
Tasks such as the erection of scaffolding and roof washing were either notified or permission granted but the planned activities that caused some tenant surprise should have been better and more clearly communicated. These tasks impacted the tenant’s use of the premises and lawns and gardens, as well as leaving unexpected mess or residue as shown in photos by the tenant.
The tenant was absent for a period of time in April 2025 for medical treatment. During this period external activities continued. The tenant was concerned that during this time the owner house keys were used or provided and later left in the mailbox by the painter. She believes on her return there was some sign of internal entry. Given the nature of the external work, and no clear need for entry for that work, why entry occurred.
This is potentially a serious breach. The release of keys by the owner as claimed (the agent keys were not released at that time) should not have occurred. The owner was not present at the hearing but was aware of the application and claims.
I have considered previous instances when the tenant had generously accommodated requests and volunteered leaving the “back door open” to assist contractors. This, and uncertain discussions between the landlord, tenant, and the tenant’s daughter around that time mean I do not consider it established that an unlawful act was permitted such that any exemplary damages might follow. I do consider that the tenant concern about uncontrolled entry without notice in her absence had some justification. Other matters
The tenant raised a flooding event in the laundry when the agent tested a tap connected to the washing machine. I accept the agent was conducting an appropriate test as part of a routine inspection and the result was not something that could be reasonably anticipated. I do not consider this event merits any specific compensation.
Equally, the shower blockage is not considered an event that merits any special consideration of compensation.
Any outgoings incurred by the tenant via the activities are not deemed significant or have been compensated.
The tenant believes the owner has blamed her for delays in the task completion. The insertion of a new tenancy just before the tasks commenced, in my view, contributed to the delays that might have been anticipated. Any costs incurred by such delays was offset by rental income taken versus an empty premises.
Lastly, the privacy breach of previous tenant details as recounted by the tenant was an unfortunate breach by the agency but it is not considered a significant breach here, nor of any impact on this tenant that merits specific orders.

Should compensation be awarded?

Section 77(2)(n) RTA allows the Tribunal to grant general damages where a landlord or a tenant has breached a provision of the RTA. These damages can include an amount for distress and pain and suffering.
In Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993 (upheld in the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust, CIV-2018-009-002094 [2020] NZDC 17667) sets out the factors that the Tribunal should take into account when making a damages award, being: a. The nature of the breaches b. The duration of the breaches c. The effect of the breaches.
Having considered the evidenced impacts on the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and her loss of amenity due to the landlord instigated activities, as well as it is being more than likely that she accepted the tenancy without prior notice of the pending works, some compensation is appropriate.
I have based compensation of a return of two weeks rent, totalling $1,120.00 and a further $300.00 as general compensation for the cost and impact of the asbestos testing on the tenant, as well as her earlier than expected exit from this tenancy. These two awards total $1,420.00. This amount returned to the tenant is approximately 15% of her rent paid during the tenancy. That is considered reasonable taking into account the three factors to be considered as posed in the Birch decision. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5298539 — Tenancy dispute at 28 Dodson Valley Road, Atawhai, Nelson 7010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5298539 — Tenancy dispute at 28 Dodson Valley Road, Atawhai, Nelson 7010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should compensation be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should compensation be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.