What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5303303 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 5303303?

Property Damage: $287.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303303?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303303?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12424930-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5303303 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 5303303?

Property Damage: $287.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303303?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303303?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12424930-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

2 Percy Street, Phillipstown, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5303303 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5303303 — net $287.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repair damage from adhesive hooks (consent	$287.50	Repair damage from adhesive hooks (consent
Net award	$287.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$287.50

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5303303 — net $287.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repair damage from adhesive hooks (consent	$287.50	Repair damage from adhesive hooks (consent
Net award	$287.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$287.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Kendra Joanne Gardiner must pay [The respondent/s] $287.50 immediately from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately split as follows: • Kendra Joanne Gardiner - $1,692.50 •[The respondent/s] - $287.50
The tenant’s application for a reduction of the term of the fixed term tenancy is withdrawn.
The landlord’s application for cleaning costs is withdrawn.
The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for compensation for delayed deck repairs, damage to chattels, emotional distress, an incomplete insulation statement and breaches of contract is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The hearing was scheduled for the tenant’s application only. The landlord recently filed a cross application for costs from the bond. By consent, I heard that application as well even though it is still at the processing stage.
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages for alleged breaches by the landlord that amount to unlawful acts and for compensation for delayed deck repairs, damage to chattels, an incomplete insulation statement, emotional distress, and breaches of contact.
The landlord has applied for cleaning costs ($126.50) and the cost to repair damage from adhesive hooks ($298.50). Background
The tenancy started on 3 March 2025. It was a fixed term tenancy until 2 March 2026.
The tenant decided she did not want to continue with the tenancy. The premises are old but are compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). The tenant found the premises to be cold and damp and she was concerned about damage to her chattels caused by mould.
The tenant asked to be released from the tenancy and the landlord agreed to release her without penalty.
The tenant lodged her application on 23 July 2025. The landlord only lodged its application recently. I received a message from Tenancy Services that there had been a delay in processing the landlord’s application.
Rather than adjourn the hearing, the parties agreed that I should hear the landlord’s application as well. It has now been linked to the tenant’s application. Agreements reached by the parties
The parties held confidential discussions to try and resolve the issues in dispute. They agreed that the tenant would accept the landlord’s claim for the repair of damage from adhesive hooks and that the landlord would withdraw the claim for cleaning.
I have incorporated those agreements in this order by consent. The agreements reached resolved the issues raised in the landlord’s cross application.
The Tribunal then heard the tenant’s claims. Issues
As I have noted, the tenant withdrew her application to have the term of the fixed term tenancy reduced. The tenancy ended on 4 August 2025.
The landlord withdrew its claim for cleaning costs.
The remaining issues for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Were the premises HHS compliant. If not, should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages? •The bond was lodged late. Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages? •Has the tenant proved claims for compensation? Relevant law
Section 13A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out what must be contained in a tenancy agreement.
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
In Birch, the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person; 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Discussion Were the premises HHS compliant. If not, should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages?
The landlord produced a HHS assessment report that confirms that the premises were HHS compliant. The tenant did not produce any evidence to refute that report.
The underfloor space was insufficient for insulation or a moisture barrier to be installed and is therefore exempt.
The tenant queried the landlord’s process having a manhole cut to check that area after the HHS report. The landlord’s representative confirmed that she wanted to be sure about compliance, so she had the assessor investigate the sub-floor. The assessor has reported: My decision to mark the underfloor cavity at 2 Percy Street as too low was correct. The clearance bearer to ground is less than 350mm making it not reasonably practicable to instal either underfloor insulation or ground moisture/vapour barrier.
I find that the premises were HHS compliant. The tenant has not proved on the balance of probabilities they were not.
It follows that the landlord did not commit any unlawful act. The Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages.
Associated with this is the tenant’s claim that the landlord failed to complete the underfloor insulation compliance statement in the tenancy agreement. I will return to this later. However, I find that the landlord’s failure to complete that part of the disclosure statement was not an intentional act, probably an oversight, and I make no award of exemplary damages for that omission. The bond was lodged late. Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages?
The bond was paid on or around the date when the tenancy started on 3 March 2025. It was not lodged until 1 August 2025 which is well beyond the 23-working day timeframe after the bond is paid. A failure to lodge the bond within that timeframe is an unlawful act 2 . 2 See sections 19(1)(b) and 19(2) RTA
The landlord’s representative gave evidence that the delay in the bond lodgement was due to the migration to a new computer system which meant that the payment of the bond to the Bond Centre did not go through. She said as soon as the tenant alerted her, she immediately lodged the bond.
Given the landlord’s representative’s evidence I cannot conclude that the failure to lodge the bond within time was an intentional act; it was negligent. But that is not sufficient to reach the threshold for exemplary damages. I therefore dismiss this aspect of the tenant’s claim.

Has the tenant proved claims for compensation?

There are 4 compensation claims by the tenant. The first is for a delay in the repair of the exterior deck, for which she seeks a rent reduction of $50.00- $100.00 from the start of the tenancy until the repair was completed on 30 July 2025.
The landlord’s representative said that the tenant’s flatmate drew the need for the deck repair to her attention at an inspection on 25 June 2025. The tenant then issued a 14-day notice on the landlord on 16 July 2025. The deck repair was completed by 30 July 2025.
The tenant says she told the landlord verbally about the deck at the start of the tenancy, but the landlord said that did not happen; the first complaint was at the inspection on 25 June 2025.
The timeframe between the inspection on 26 June and the completed repairs on 30 July is not one the Tribunal would consider unreasonable. Had the deck repair been of such a concern to the tenant, the Tribunal would have expected to see some documentation of the issue being raised well before it was.
Compensation flows from a breach of a statutory responsibility. Here, the Tribunal finds no breach; the repair was completed within a reasonable timeframe and within the 14-day notice period. The tenant acknowledged that in an email to the landlord. She said: I also want to acknowledge and appreciate that the deck repairs were completed in a timely manner following my 14-day remedy notice, despite this being a concern I raised prior to moving in.
I dismiss this part of the application.
The second compensation claim is for the tenant’s mattress, a pair of shoes, and a jacket she states were damaged by mould. No evidence of value was provided. The tenant has not replaced these chattels/items of clothing.
The fact there is mould at premises does not of itself establish a landlord breach. Mould can result from the manner in which premises are used, for example, a failure to ventilate.
The tenant has not established that the mould resulted from any breach by the landlord. It seems she has assumed that the mould is due to the absence of underfloor insulation or a moisture barrier. But she produced no evidence to establish that.
The landlord produced an email from the current tenant who states: ...me & my daughter live at 2 percy sreet phillipstown for over 4 weeks now we have had no issues with mould or moisture dampness it’s warm enough you need to have heat pump on & pull curtains every day sometimes open windows if needed fresh air...
Without a proven landlord breach, the Tribunal cannot award compensation. I dismiss this part of the application.
The third compensation claim is for emotional distress and compensation arising from the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond within time and the delay in repairing the deck.
This claim cannot succeed. The bond has been lodged so the tenant’s position was protected as from 1 August, before the tenancy ended. I have already found that the timeframe for the deck repair was reasonable. And, in as much as the tenant claims emotional distress, so too does the landlord who produced evidence from her doctor.
The Tribunal cannot compensate hurt feelings because that is too subjective. Here, each party’s behaviour has caused worry and distress to the other. The reason why is for them to ponder.
The fourth compensation claim arises from the tenancy agreement not having a completed declaration as to the underfloor insulation status of the premises.
I have already found that the claim for exemplary damages for that omission is not established. The compensation claim is separate.
Had the landlord stated that the premises had underfloor insulation when they did not, there would be merit in the tenant’s claim for compensation. But the section was not completed. A reasonable person would understand that to mean that there was no underfloor insulation, because the insulation question was not answered.
The tenant made no further enquiry at the time. I do not accept that she would have decided not to rent the premises if the statement had ‘no’ checked for the question regarding the presence of underfloor insulation. I dismiss this part of the application.
The Tribunal also takes account of the fact that the tenant was released from the fixed term tenancy (the contract) by the landlord after only 5 months without penalty. Had the Tribunal been required to decide whether she should have been released it is probable that her application would not have succeeded.
An application to be released early from a fixed term tenancy is an application of high threshold. Even if the Tribunal had released her, it is likely that compensation would have been awarded to the landlord for the loss of the contract, likely equivalent to 4 weeks’ rent as well as reasonable costs for finding a new tenant (sometimes referred to as a break lease fee). The landlord charged none of those fees to the tenant. Result
The tenant’s application for exemplary damages and for compensation is dismissed.
By consent, the tenant will pay the landlord $287.50 from the bond. The balance of the bond will be paid to the tenant.
The landlord’s application for cleaning costs is withdrawn.
The tenant’s application for a reduction of the term of the fixed term tenancy is withdrawn. Name suppression
The tenant did not seek name suppression.
The landlord sought, and is entitled to, name suppression as its application and its defence to the tenant’s application are successful 3 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5303303 — Property damage at 2 Percy Street, Phillipstown, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5303303 — Property damage at 2 Percy Street, Phillipstown, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant proved claims for compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant proved claims for compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions