What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5298803 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 5298803?

Compensation: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5298803?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5298803?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12309102-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5298803 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 5298803?

Compensation: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5298803?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5298803?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12309102-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Flat 2, 452 Worcester Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5298803 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5298803 — net $1,128.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$700.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$400.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,128.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,128.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Kim Dam and Ken Dam must pay [the tenant] $1,128.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
Kim Dam and Ken Dam must, by 5 September 2025, carry out a full electrical check of the premises and remedy any fault that is identified.
Kim Dam and Ken Dam must pay [the tenant] $50 for each week after 5 September 2025 that Order 3 above has not been complied with.
If the landlord fails to comply with Order 3 above, then the tenant may undertake the full electrical check and charge the landlords the cost of the work up to $300.
Any money payable under this order may be set off against rent payable.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlords were represented by their property manager, Iron Bridge Property Management (Iron Bridge).
The tenant claims compensation, exemplary damages and work orders due to alleged breaches by the landlords of their obligations with respect to the condition of the premises. Background
This tenancy began on 22 February 2025, and it is for a fixed term to 20 February 2026.
Iron Bridge has been managing the tenancies of the premises for at least the last 7 years. This is the landlords’ only rental property.
There was an ingoing inspection and report that was sent to the tenant at the start of the tenancy. She sent an email to Iron Bridge on 24 February listing some maintenance issues she had identified, including two lights that were not working and a loose bathroom tap.
Numerous emails from the tenant followed because either there was no response, or the tenant was not satisfied with the landlords’ response.
The landlord remedied most of the maintenance issues raised by the tenant. One issue, the lighting in the premises, has not been remedied to the tenant’s satisfaction. The tenant says that other issues were not remedied within a reasonable time. Law
Section 45 of the residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Generally, the landlord must be aware of a problem affecting the premises before coming under an obligation to remedy it. Once the landlord is aware of a problem, they must remedy it within a reasonable time. If they fail to do so, they may be liable to pay the tenant compensation or exemplary damages or both.
Where the Tribunal finds that the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. (s78(1)(e) of the Act).
The Tribunal may also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. (ss78(2) and 78(2AA) of the Act).
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work if the landlord fails to comply with the work order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. (ss78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) of the Act).
Breaching these obligations under s45 of the Act is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. Issues Lighting/Electrics
The tenant has had problems with lights in the premises not working. She has had to replace numerous light bulbs and the landlords have also replaced light bulbs and the transformers for them.
An electrician’s invoice dated 3 May records the replacement of 5 lights and transformers that were not working. At the same time, there was a quotation for replacing the 22 halogen lights in the premises with LED lights in the sum of $1,383. The landlords requested another quotation that came in at $1,840.
Iron Bridge’s recommendation to the landlords was to replace the lights with LED lights because halogen lights have a reputation for being unreliable.
I am satisfied that the landlords did not respond by replacing the lights that failed within a reasonable time. I find as well that the landlords should have had the electrics fully checked in case there is an underlying electrical fault or faults that are causing the lights to fail. The tenant noted that a lot of the lights that have failed appear to be on the same circuit.
Even after accepting that halogen lights tend to have a shorter life span that LED lights, the number and frequency of lights that have failed in the premises seems unusual. Replacing the lights with LED lights might well solve the problem but until that has been done, the tenant is entitled to be assured that the electrics are in good order.
If the electrics are in good order or are put in good order, and the lights continue to fail repeatedly, what then? I think it would be going too far for the Tribunal to require the landlord to replace the lights with LED lights. Halogen lighting is commonplace and replacing them all with LED lights would be go beyond maintaining the premises in a reasonable state of repair. But the landlord would then have to accept that the tenant is entitled to have the lights replaced as and when they fail. That could potentially be a nuisance for the tenant and expensive for the landlord. The option of installing LED lights is likely to be best option for both parties in those circumstances.
I find that the tenant is entitled to compensation for the landlords’ failure to carry out the electrical testing and for not replacing the defective lights within a reasonable time.
The tenant claims $900 compensation for damage to her mobile telephone. It fell and was broken when she was using it for light in the bathroom when the light above the vanity wasn’t working. I can understand why the tenant makes this claim. If the light had been working, it is unlikely that her telephone would have broken, and she would still be using it.
But I cannot accept that there is a sufficient causal connection between the breakage and the landlord’s breach or that this kind of damage was foreseeable by the landlord. I therefore decline to award compensation for the damaged telephone. Vermin
After two months in the premises the tenant noticed the sound of vermin in the roof space and informed the landlords. They arranged for a handyman to lay some traps and then for professional pest controllers to attend and put down bait and monitor the situation. After two months or so the problem was resolved.
Vermin can be a problem in house anywhere and at any time. There was not a problem at the start of the tenancy, and I find that the landlords’ response was appropriate. There has therefore been no breach.
The tenant is now having a problem with excessive flies in the premises, and she is concerned that the consequences of the vermin extermination is the cause. There was no evidence of that, and I suggest that the tenant should investigate and report the result to the landlord if it is their responsibility. Heat Pump
The heat pump in the premises has been working and the filter was clean when the tenancy began. It seems that it had not been serviced for some time and the tenant was affected by dust and allergens that could be removed only by a deep clean. That was done in mid-July and the tenant noticed an improvement.
The usual recommendation is that heat pumps should be serviced annually. In most cases, if they are working well, that is not a tenancy requirement. In this case, the heat pump benefitted from a thorough clean, and the tenant noticed the improvement in air quality. I can accept that without regular servicing, the air quality from a heat pump is likely to diminish,
I find that once the tenant complained about the heat pump, and given that there had been no recent servicing, that the landlords were in breach of their maintenance obligations in this respect by not promptly having it serviced. Modest compensation should be awarded. Bathroom Tap
The bathroom tap was corroded and loose in the vanity resulting in water leaking into the vanity unit. The tenant raised the issue on 24 February. The tap was replaced at the end of May.
The tenant was entitled to have the tap replaced sooner. It was not a very serious issue, but it was a concern for the tenant. Modest compensation should be awarded. Garage
A light in the garage remains out of order. There are two other lights so this is not a significant concern. Compensation
The most serious issue is the lights. The landlords should have fully tested the electrics. Even if that testing does not find any fault, it should have been done. The tenant has been without adequate lighting for significant periods. That has seriously diminished her enjoyment of the premises. She has also had the concern that there the electrics are unsafe. I find that $700 compensation is appropriate.
I award $100 each for the bathroom tap and heat pump issues. Exemplary Damages
I find that there should, as well, be an award of exemplary damages. I am struck by the apparent reasonableness of the quotation to replace the lights. The landlords sought another quotation which was significantly higher. Throughout this time the tenant has suffered from bad lighting and has not had the comfort of being assured that the electrics are safe.
My impression is that the landlords have their own reasons for deferring addressing this issue properly and that constitutes an intentional avoidance of their responsibilities. These are not landlords who have wholly ignored their responsibilities, but they have chosen not to meet them fully, and that warrants a modest award of exemplary damages. I award $400. Work Order
There lighting/electrical issue must be addressed and so I have made an appropriate work order. Filing Fee
The tenant has had substantial success and so I have awarded the filing fee. Suppression
For the same reason the tenant is entitled to a suppression order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5298803 — net $1,128.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$700.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$400.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,128.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,128.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Kim Dam and Ken Dam must pay [the tenant] $1,128.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
Kim Dam and Ken Dam must, by 5 September 2025, carry out a full electrical check of the premises and remedy any fault that is identified.
Kim Dam and Ken Dam must pay [the tenant] $50 for each week after 5 September 2025 that Order 3 above has not been complied with.
If the landlord fails to comply with Order 3 above, then the tenant may undertake the full electrical check and charge the landlords the cost of the work up to $300.
Any money payable under this order may be set off against rent payable.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlords were represented by their property manager, Iron Bridge Property Management (Iron Bridge).
The tenant claims compensation, exemplary damages and work orders due to alleged breaches by the landlords of their obligations with respect to the condition of the premises. Background
This tenancy began on 22 February 2025, and it is for a fixed term to 20 February 2026.
Iron Bridge has been managing the tenancies of the premises for at least the last 7 years. This is the landlords’ only rental property.
There was an ingoing inspection and report that was sent to the tenant at the start of the tenancy. She sent an email to Iron Bridge on 24 February listing some maintenance issues she had identified, including two lights that were not working and a loose bathroom tap.
Numerous emails from the tenant followed because either there was no response, or the tenant was not satisfied with the landlords’ response.
The landlord remedied most of the maintenance issues raised by the tenant. One issue, the lighting in the premises, has not been remedied to the tenant’s satisfaction. The tenant says that other issues were not remedied within a reasonable time. Law
Section 45 of the residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Generally, the landlord must be aware of a problem affecting the premises before coming under an obligation to remedy it. Once the landlord is aware of a problem, they must remedy it within a reasonable time. If they fail to do so, they may be liable to pay the tenant compensation or exemplary damages or both.
Where the Tribunal finds that the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. (s78(1)(e) of the Act).
The Tribunal may also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. (ss78(2) and 78(2AA) of the Act).
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work if the landlord fails to comply with the work order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. (ss78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) of the Act).
Breaching these obligations under s45 of the Act is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. Issues Lighting/Electrics
The tenant has had problems with lights in the premises not working. She has had to replace numerous light bulbs and the landlords have also replaced light bulbs and the transformers for them.
An electrician’s invoice dated 3 May records the replacement of 5 lights and transformers that were not working. At the same time, there was a quotation for replacing the 22 halogen lights in the premises with LED lights in the sum of $1,383. The landlords requested another quotation that came in at $1,840.
Iron Bridge’s recommendation to the landlords was to replace the lights with LED lights because halogen lights have a reputation for being unreliable.
I am satisfied that the landlords did not respond by replacing the lights that failed within a reasonable time. I find as well that the landlords should have had the electrics fully checked in case there is an underlying electrical fault or faults that are causing the lights to fail. The tenant noted that a lot of the lights that have failed appear to be on the same circuit.
Even after accepting that halogen lights tend to have a shorter life span that LED lights, the number and frequency of lights that have failed in the premises seems unusual. Replacing the lights with LED lights might well solve the problem but until that has been done, the tenant is entitled to be assured that the electrics are in good order.
If the electrics are in good order or are put in good order, and the lights continue to fail repeatedly, what then? I think it would be going too far for the Tribunal to require the landlord to replace the lights with LED lights. Halogen lighting is commonplace and replacing them all with LED lights would be go beyond maintaining the premises in a reasonable state of repair. But the landlord would then have to accept that the tenant is entitled to have the lights replaced as and when they fail. That could potentially be a nuisance for the tenant and expensive for the landlord. The option of installing LED lights is likely to be best option for both parties in those circumstances.
I find that the tenant is entitled to compensation for the landlords’ failure to carry out the electrical testing and for not replacing the defective lights within a reasonable time.
The tenant claims $900 compensation for damage to her mobile telephone. It fell and was broken when she was using it for light in the bathroom when the light above the vanity wasn’t working. I can understand why the tenant makes this claim. If the light had been working, it is unlikely that her telephone would have broken, and she would still be using it.
But I cannot accept that there is a sufficient causal connection between the breakage and the landlord’s breach or that this kind of damage was foreseeable by the landlord. I therefore decline to award compensation for the damaged telephone. Vermin
After two months in the premises the tenant noticed the sound of vermin in the roof space and informed the landlords. They arranged for a handyman to lay some traps and then for professional pest controllers to attend and put down bait and monitor the situation. After two months or so the problem was resolved.
Vermin can be a problem in house anywhere and at any time. There was not a problem at the start of the tenancy, and I find that the landlords’ response was appropriate. There has therefore been no breach.
The tenant is now having a problem with excessive flies in the premises, and she is concerned that the consequences of the vermin extermination is the cause. There was no evidence of that, and I suggest that the tenant should investigate and report the result to the landlord if it is their responsibility. Heat Pump
The heat pump in the premises has been working and the filter was clean when the tenancy began. It seems that it had not been serviced for some time and the tenant was affected by dust and allergens that could be removed only by a deep clean. That was done in mid-July and the tenant noticed an improvement.
The usual recommendation is that heat pumps should be serviced annually. In most cases, if they are working well, that is not a tenancy requirement. In this case, the heat pump benefitted from a thorough clean, and the tenant noticed the improvement in air quality. I can accept that without regular servicing, the air quality from a heat pump is likely to diminish,
I find that once the tenant complained about the heat pump, and given that there had been no recent servicing, that the landlords were in breach of their maintenance obligations in this respect by not promptly having it serviced. Modest compensation should be awarded. Bathroom Tap
The bathroom tap was corroded and loose in the vanity resulting in water leaking into the vanity unit. The tenant raised the issue on 24 February. The tap was replaced at the end of May.
The tenant was entitled to have the tap replaced sooner. It was not a very serious issue, but it was a concern for the tenant. Modest compensation should be awarded. Garage
A light in the garage remains out of order. There are two other lights so this is not a significant concern. Compensation
The most serious issue is the lights. The landlords should have fully tested the electrics. Even if that testing does not find any fault, it should have been done. The tenant has been without adequate lighting for significant periods. That has seriously diminished her enjoyment of the premises. She has also had the concern that there the electrics are unsafe. I find that $700 compensation is appropriate.
I award $100 each for the bathroom tap and heat pump issues. Exemplary Damages
I find that there should, as well, be an award of exemplary damages. I am struck by the apparent reasonableness of the quotation to replace the lights. The landlords sought another quotation which was significantly higher. Throughout this time the tenant has suffered from bad lighting and has not had the comfort of being assured that the electrics are safe.
My impression is that the landlords have their own reasons for deferring addressing this issue properly and that constitutes an intentional avoidance of their responsibilities. These are not landlords who have wholly ignored their responsibilities, but they have chosen not to meet them fully, and that warrants a modest award of exemplary damages. I award $400. Work Order
There lighting/electrical issue must be addressed and so I have made an appropriate work order. Filing Fee
The tenant has had substantial success and so I have awarded the filing fee. Suppression
For the same reason the tenant is entitled to a suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5298803 — Exemplary damages at Flat 2, 452 Worcester Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5298803 — Exemplary damages at Flat 2, 452 Worcester Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions