What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5303646 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 5303646?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303646?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303646?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12485611-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5303646 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 5303646?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303646?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303646?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12485611-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

42A Dart Place, Fernhill, Queenstown 9300 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5303646 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5303646 — net $748.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$720.00	Loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$748.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$748.00

Both parties attended the hearing by video.

The tenant applied for compensation for loss of amenity in relation to the dryer provided with the tenancy.

It is not disputed that the dryer was listed as a chattel in the tenancy agreement. That dryer stopped working and the tenants notified the landlord on 24 April 2025. A replacement dryer was provided on 29 July 2025. The tenants were without a dryer for 96 days.

The landlord had acted between the time when the dryer broke, and the new dryer was provided. At first there was an attempt to repair the dryer, but replacement parts would take months to arrive. When the landlord was advised of the delay a new dryer was purchased but when it arrived it was damaged. The company that provided the dryer agreed to a refund, but that dryer was out of stock, so a new model was purchased.

In the meantime, the tenants did not have the use of a dryer during winter months with a young baby. At the hearing the tenant submitted that not having a dryer disturbed their daily life. Where the house is located there is little, if any sun during winter months so drying clothes outside on the line was not an option. The tenant said that they knew this when they moved to this tenancy but relied on the dryer being provided. She said that with the baby they needed to wash at least twice a week and more often during the two occasions when the baby was unwell. In addition, one of the tenants works as a wastewater technician so his clothing needed to be washed and dried separately.

At the hearing the landlord submitted that $250.00 had been offered which he considered was fair compensation. That figure was calculated at $20.00 per week for use of a laundromat.

In response the tenant said that use of a laundromat would not be a practical option for them due to the inconvenience and time involved for the tenant who was working and looking after the baby.

As the clothes dryer was provided by the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy the landlord is responsible for maintaining it in a reasonable state of repair 1 . As the dryer was not repaired or replaced within a reasonable the tenant has experienced a loss of amenity (loss of the benefit of having a working dryer). I consider that the tenant would have experienced significant inconvenience during this period.

I find that the tenant suffered a loss of amenity for 96 days. The Tribunal considers that a reasonable rent reduction for the loss of amenity to be 5% of the daily rent. The weekly rent was $1,050.00 so the daily rent is $150.00. The daily reduction is $7.50. The tenant is therefore awarded compensation of $720.00 ($7.50 x 96 days).

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

The tenant sought an order for name suppression and is entitled to an order as the successful party 2 . 1 Section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5303646 — net $748.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$720.00	Loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$748.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$748.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bennett Family Trust Tony Bennett must pay [The tenant/s] $748.00 immediately, as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The tenant applied for compensation for loss of amenity in relation to the dryer provided with the tenancy.
It is not disputed that the dryer was listed as a chattel in the tenancy agreement. That dryer stopped working and the tenants notified the landlord on 24 April 2025. A replacement dryer was provided on 29 July 2025. The tenants were without a dryer for 96 days.
The landlord had acted between the time when the dryer broke, and the new dryer was provided. At first there was an attempt to repair the dryer, but replacement parts would take months to arrive. When the landlord was advised of the delay a new dryer was purchased but when it arrived it was damaged. The company that provided the dryer agreed to a refund, but that dryer was out of stock, so a new model was purchased.
In the meantime, the tenants did not have the use of a dryer during winter months with a young baby. At the hearing the tenant submitted that not having a dryer disturbed their daily life. Where the house is located there is little, if any sun during winter months so drying clothes outside on the line was not an option. The tenant said that they knew this when they moved to this tenancy but relied on the dryer being provided. She said that with the baby they needed to wash at least twice a week and more often during the two occasions when the baby was unwell. In addition, one of the tenants works as a wastewater technician so his clothing needed to be washed and dried separately.
At the hearing the landlord submitted that $250.00 had been offered which he considered was fair compensation. That figure was calculated at $20.00 per week for use of a laundromat.
In response the tenant said that use of a laundromat would not be a practical option for them due to the inconvenience and time involved for the tenant who was working and looking after the baby.
As the clothes dryer was provided by the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy the landlord is responsible for maintaining it in a reasonable state of repair 1 . As the dryer was not repaired or replaced within a reasonable the tenant has experienced a loss of amenity (loss of the benefit of having a working dryer). I consider that the tenant would have experienced significant inconvenience during this period.
I find that the tenant suffered a loss of amenity for 96 days. The Tribunal considers that a reasonable rent reduction for the loss of amenity to be 5% of the daily rent. The weekly rent was $1,050.00 so the daily rent is $150.00. The daily reduction is $7.50. The tenant is therefore awarded compensation of $720.00 ($7.50 x 96 days).
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant sought an order for name suppression and is entitled to an order as the successful party 2 . 1 Section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986

Tenancy Tribunal case 5303646 — Tenancy dispute at 42A Dart Place, Fernhill, Queenstown 9300

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5303646 — Tenancy dispute at 42A Dart Place, Fernhill, Queenstown 9300

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions