What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5306479 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 5306479?

Property Damage: $1,250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5306479?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5306479?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12814851-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5306479 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 5306479?

Property Damage: $1,250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5306479?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5306479?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12814851-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5306479 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5306479 — net $1,278.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: general damages	$1,250.00	general damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,278.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,278.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5306479 — net $1,278.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: general damages	$1,250.00	general damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,278.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,278.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details. It is appropriate that the property address details be suppressed, as it will not in future be used as a residential rental.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,278.00 immediately, calculated as shown below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord here includes both the owners and the property manager as the owners’ agent.
This property suffered significant flood damage in the Auckland Anniversary weekend floods in early 2023, which had been fully remediated before this tenancy started. A Practical Completion Certificate was issued by the owner’s insurer in March 2024.
A fixed term tenancy was created under the original tenancy agreement, which was for a term from 12 April 2024 to 11 April 2025.
[The tenant/s] became a tenant by variation of the original agreement on 15 November 2024. She says she was not told about the flood damage and remediation work before she joined the tenancy. Nor was she told the property was under assessment by Auckland City Council (“ACC”) under its “risk assessment for storm affected properties scheme”.
That became apparent when the tenants were given notice by the property manager on 27 November 2024 that “We have just been informed from the Auckland City Council regarding a property visit for an assessment due to last year’s flooding..”
By operation of s.60A RTA, the tenancy became a period tenancy from 12 April 2025. Some of the tenants did not continue with the tenancy and [The tenant/s] looked for and referred other tenants to the landlord.
On 30 April 2025 the tenants were given 42 days’ notice of termination ending the tenancy on 11 June 2025 on the grounds that, “The owners have only recently informed us that they received an assessment report from [ACC] categorising their property as Category 3. The property has now been sold to [ACC].”
The tenants then gave 21 days’ notice of termination but vacated on 11 May 2025, 10 days before the end of that notice period. The landlord has waived the rent for that 10 day period. The Claims
The tenant’s claims are that: a. the landlord had an obligation to inform her about the earlier flooding and remediation work before she joined the tenancy; b. in a discussion with the property manager around 9 April 2025, the property manager represented that although the tenancy would become a periodic tenancy, the tenant would be able to stay on for at least 6 months, which was breached when the termination notice was given; c. the landlord was aware of the Category 3 assessment on 13 March 2025 and had an obligation to tell her because that categorisation meant that the premises represented an intolerable risk to life so she was placed in danger by not being informed; Did the landlord have an obligation to inform the tenant about the earlier flooding and remediation work before she entered the tenancy?
The evidence shows that the damage from the earlier flooding had been fully remediated before the tenancy started.
The evidence does not show that following the remediation work, the landlord was aware of specific relevant information about risk or prejudice to the tenant, which was not disclosed.
I do not find it proved that the landlord breached its obligations by not telling the tenant about those earlier events.

Did the landlord represent that at least a 6 month tenancy would be available?

The property manager sent the tenant an e-mail on 9 April 2025 saying: “The tenancy will roll to a periodic tenancy on 12/04/25 which means it’s a rolling tenancy with no end date. If you were to want to end the tenancy, you would have to provide 21 days’ notice. If the owner was to choose to sell their property to the council and require vacant possession, we would be required to give you 42 days’ notice”
That is an accurate summary of the legal position.
, The evidence does not prove that other representations were made alongside that e-mail, that the owner would not sell and require vacant possession within 6 months.
I do not find a breach of the landlord’s obligation in that regard.

Was the landlord aware of the Category 3 assessment on 13 March 2025?

I accept the property managers’ evidence that they were not aware of the outcome of the ACC assessment until told by the owners later.
The best evidence available on that question is an e-mail to the tenant from ACC stating: “We confirm the Final Risk Category(3) communication date for this property was 13 March 2025. This was communicated to the property owner, followed by an e-mail to the property owner/ contact person sending the documentation and supporting material. Our contact was directly with the property owner”
In the absence of any evidence contradicting that statement, I find it proved on balance that the owners were aware of the level 3 categorisation on 13 March 2025.
It would not necessarily be surprising that the owners felt no need to inform the property managers until they later decided to sell the property to ACC and needed the tenants to be given notice of termination.

Did that mean the premises were dangerous and/ or uninhabitable?

The purpose of the risk assessment is to help determine: • How likely it is that future severe weather events would pose a risk to life • if there is a way the risk can be managed so it is safe for people to live there 1
Risk category 3 is defined as: “These properties met the threshold for intolerable risk to life. Property purchase required to reduce the risk of future weather events” 2
The assessment looks at future risk, it does not mean the property is no longer habitable or able to be occupied 3 .
That being so, the rights of termination given under s.59 RTA for premises that are uninhabitable, did not arise because of that classification.

Did the landlords have an obligation to disclose the classification?

Until 21 March 2025, 21 days before the end of the fixed term on 11 April 2025, both the landlord and the tenant had the option to give notice that the tenancy would not become a periodic tenancy from 12 April 4 .
For the tenant, the property’s category 3 risk assessment was directly material to her decision whether or not to give that notice because: a. it showed the property had been assessed as creating a high risk of danger from flooding; and b. it meant there was a likelihood that the property would be purchased by ACC, ending the tenancy.
The landlord must have known those would be important considerations for the tenant in deciding whether to continue with the tenancy beyond the end of the fixed term.
I find it to be a misrepresentation by omission, to fail to tell the tenant about that classification.
While I do not find that proved to be the landlord’s motivation the landlord has materially benefitted from the failure to disclose. Had the tenant been told about the classification and ended the tenancy on 11 April, the landlord would have lost rent from that date, without then being able to rent the premises out with the pending sale. Instead, the landlord continued to receive rent until 11 May. 1 ACC Risk assessments for storm-affected properties – update 21 August 2025 2 ACC Risk assessments for storm-affected properties – update 21 August 2025 3 Compared for instance to a notice by the Council under s.124 Building Act 2004 4 S.60A(2)(c) and (2A)
I find the landlord should compensate the tenant for losses caused by the breach of the landlord’s disclosure obligations.

What compensation should be paid?

The intent of compensation is to put a party in the position they would have been in if the other party hadn’t beached their obligations.
The tenant claims losses including moving costs, lost class time and having to pay higher rent at the tenancy she moved to.
Those do not appear to me to be losses caused by the landlord breach. If the landlord had done what it should and told her about the risk classification, the tenant could have ended the tenancy on 11 April. She world still have incurred time costs, moving costs and would have potentially paid higher rent for alternative accommodation for longer.
The consequence of the landlord’s breach is that instead of having information that would have led her to end the tenancy on 11 April, the tenant was misled into a decision to allow the tenancy to become a periodic tenancy from 12 April.
That meant: a. the tenant went through the process of trying to find new tenants/ flatmates for the continuing tenancy, only to be given notice when the owners decided to sell to ACC. Those prospective flatmates then became upset with the tenant, feeling misled by her; b. the tenant otherwise planned for a continuing tenancy, to find it shortly ended; c. the tenant was caused stress and upset finding that the landlords knew she was living in a property assessed by ACC as having, “met the threshold for intolerable risk to life...” but didn’t tell her.
Those are harms caused to the tenant by the landlord’s breach but are not able to be arithmetically calculated.
In those circumstances, it is appropriate to consider making an award of general damages, the purpose of which is not to compensate for a quantifiable loss but to compensate for pain or suffering or emotional distress” 5
The relevant considerations are: a. the nature of the breach; b. the duration of the breach; c. the effect of the breach on the party 6 . 5 See Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 (at para [35])
Here, this was a serious breach of an obligation to disclose, from which the landlord benefitted.
The failure to disclose was effectively overridden when notice of termination was given after the owners decided to sell to ACC.
The effect on the tenant was not primarily financial. She continued to receive the benefit of living in the premises to the date she vacated. The landlord waived rent that would otherwise have been payable for the period between her vacating the premises and the end of her 21 day notice period.
As to quantification of general damages, in Tenant v Ezy Rentals 7 the Tribunal said: “By reference to Otautahi, I consider the bands that might usefully inform the Tribunal’s decision in this case are: A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $2,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of over $3,000.00.”
The evidence satisfies me that due to the landlord’s breach of its obligation to disclose the category 3 classification of the premises, the tenant has been caused genuine and very significant upset, disruption and stress.
I take into account the landlord’s mitigation of the financial loss to the tenant and that if disclosure had been made, the tenancy would not have been able to continue. The landlord was legally entitled to sell the property to ACC and require vacant possession.
Weighing those factors in light of the principles noted above I find that the landlord should compensate the tenant through an award of general damages of $1,250.00.
Because [The tenant/s] has succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5306479 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5306479 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord represent that at least a 6 month tenancy would be available?

Was the landlord aware of the Category 3 assessment on 13 March 2025?

Did that mean the premises were dangerous and/ or uninhabitable?

Did the landlords have an obligation to disclose the classification?

What compensation should be paid?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord represent that at least a 6 month tenancy would be available?

Was the landlord aware of the Category 3 assessment on 13 March 2025?

Did that mean the premises were dangerous and/ or uninhabitable?

Did the landlords have an obligation to disclose the classification?

What compensation should be paid?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions