What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5309467 about?

The tribunal order states: A1 Property Managers Limited as agent for Alison and Dean Officer trustees of

How much money was awarded in case 5309467?

Compensation: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $105.01 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5309467?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5309467?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12733218-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5309467 about?

The tribunal order states: A1 Property Managers Limited as agent for Alison and Dean Officer trustees of

How much money was awarded in case 5309467?

Compensation: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $105.01 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5309467?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5309467?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12733218-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat C, 56 Brockworth Place, Riccarton, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5309467 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5309467 — net $1,394.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$105.01		Rent arrears
Compensation – loss of enjoyment of tenancy		$1,500.00	Compensation – loss of enjoyment of tenancy
Total award	$105.01	$1,500.00
Net award		$1,394.99
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,394.99

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5309467 — net $1,394.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$105.01		Rent arrears
Compensation – loss of enjoyment of tenancy		$1,500.00	Compensation – loss of enjoyment of tenancy
Total award	$105.01	$1,500.00
Net award		$1,394.99
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,394.99

Order

A1 Property Managers Limited as agent for Alison and Dean Officer trustees of the Officer Family Trust must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $1,394.99 immediately, calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 (6492726-002) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.
The tenants’ application for exemplary damages application is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for the cost of carpet replacement (insurance excess) is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for carpet cleaning costs is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Belu and Ms Edwards represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, carpet cleaning costs ($100.00), and the cost of replacing the lounge carpet (limited to the amount of the insurance excess - $1,150.00).
The landlord withdrew the claim for carpet cleaning, so only the claims for rent arrears and carpet replacement remain live.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for several alleged breaches by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities.
The tenants’ submissions (21 pages) and separate compensation document were prepared with AI assistance. While there is nothing wrong with that there are errors in the submissions. Reference is made to sections of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) that are either not relevant or do not exist (for example section 4A RTA referred to as a duty of good faith) and the relief claimed adopts a ‘scatter gun’ approach that is not especially helpful.
In other instances, the AI assistance appears to ignore relevant legal provisions, including that exemplary damages cannot be awarded where more than 12 months have passed since the alleged unlawful act occurred.
I have endeavoured to work through the submissions as best I can to address the relevant issues. I will not address the irrelevant references. Background
The tenancy started on 1 December 2023. The tenancy was assigned to these tenants from other tenants who wanted to leave their fixed term tenancy before the term had expired.
Once the term of that tenancy expired, these tenants entered a fixed term tenancy with the landlord. When that term came to an end, the tenancy became periodic, so the tenants were able to give 21 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy, which they did. The tenancy ended on 3 July 2025.
The tenants experienced some difficulties on the day the tenancy started because the departing tenants had an issue with their moving arrangements. The time they took possession was delayed, they say until about 6pm that day. They also allege that the premises were not ready to be rented; they were not adequately cleaned, and there were some outstanding maintenance issues.
The tenants also claim that there were on-going maintenance issues throughout the tenancy that affected their use and enjoyment of the tenancy.
After the tenancy ended, the landlord lodged their application for rent arrears and compensation relating to the lounge carpet. The tenants then cross applied.
The tenants have prepared a compensation schedule. They seek compensation of $15,367.00 (together with costs arising from the delayed possession) which includes a rent abatement of $14,330.39 and compensation for excess power costs of $785.61. As well they seek exemplary damages. Issues
The Tribunal must determine these issues: •Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? •Has the landlord proved a claim for the replacement cost of the lounge carpet? •Have the tenants proved a claim for exemplary damages? •Have the tenants proved a claim for compensation? Relevant law
Section 38 RTA provides that a tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord and that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
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, with intent, has 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; (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. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 Discussion

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

The tenants accepted the landlord’s claim for rent arrears other than for $25.00 which related to the delay in them obtaining possession.
I explained that rent arrears are mathematical. How much rent was owed and how much was paid?
I find the landlord’s rent claimed proved by the rent records produced in evidence. Any delay in the tenants taking possession can be dealt with by way of compensation. Has the landlord proved a claim for the replacement cost of the lounge carpet?
The tenants deny causing any staining to the lounge carpet beyond what was already there when the tenancy started.
I find it probable that the tenants did cause some additional staining. Due to the staining the carpet had to be replaced.
The landlord is insured. The policy has an excess of $1,150.00.
A landlord’s claim for tenant damage is limited to the amount of the insurance excess which means it cannot exceed that amount. But that does not mean that a landlord should always be awarded the amount of the excess.
Here, the carpet replacement cost (which probably included the underlay) was $2,077.20. With the deduction of the excess and $100.00 for cleaning, the owner’s insurer cash settled the claim for $1,027.20, slightly more than 50% of the cost of the replacement carpet.
The carpet was probably about 15 years old; the house was built in 2008. Carpet of that age would likely be considered fully depreciated, or close to it, for residential tenancy premises.
Had the landlord not been insured, the Tribunal might have awarded compensation of $200-$300.00 taking the age of the carpet into account.
The owners have received considerably more than that from the cash settlement they received from their insurer. Were the Tribunal to award the excess, they would in fact receive the full cost of the new carpet.
The Tribunal must take depreciation into account when assessing claims such as this. The landlord cannot expect to receive the full cost of carpet replacement for carpet that was already probably at least 15 years old.
I dismiss the claim for compensation for the carpet. The insurer’s cash settlement even after the deduction of the excess means they have been well compensated for the loss of the carpet taking account of its age.

Have the tenants proved a claim for exemplary damages?

For the Tribunal to award exemplary damages, the tenants must prove that the landlord turned their mind to the alleged unlawful act and deliberately set about to commit it – see Birch.
A failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and to comply with the HHS are landlord responsibilities which if breached may result in an award of exemplary damages.
The tenants set out their case in almost forensic detail – every slight or hurt was documented as if to show that the landlord deliberately set about to ignore them, or blame them, or otherwise demean them.
The Tribunal is not a forum of general complaint. If the relationship between the tenants and their property manager was tense at times (although the tenor of communications between them does not suggest it was) that does not constitute a breach by either party. The Tribunal does not (cannot) compensate hurt feelings.
The way in which the tenants’ claim was presented suggested that every possible complaint was formulated to appear as a landlord breach, when it was not.
That repairs took time, does not establish any intentional action by the landlord. The tenants seemed to believe that anything the landlord did and said was designed to misrepresent and mislead and to retaliate.
I find no intentional breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities in this case. The Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages. The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Have the tenants proved a claim for compensation?

The tenants referred to the substandard condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy; the delay in them getting possession (they say possession was delayed until 6pm) and the failure to provide a key to the internal access to the garage. They also addressed the on-going dishwasher faults; the oven and electrical faults; an instance when the induction cooktop caught fire; and the on- going issue with the heat pump.
Any issues with the delayed possession on the move-in day were beyond the landlord’s control. The departing tenant’s moving arrangement did not work as planned. But as the landlord noted, these tenants were granted extra time to fully vacate, so the one inconvenience was to an extent off-set by the allowance extended to them at the end of the tenancy.
The issues with the dishwasher, the oven, electrical faults, and the heat pump are well documented. That the induction cook top caught fire was not something that the landlord caused or controlled. It simply happened as sometimes is the case. It was replaced.
The tenants claim that they could not use the oven during the entire time of the tenancy, and they purchased a bench top oven to use.
The heat pump did not function correctly intermittently. It failed fully in June 2024 but was replaced towards the end of July.
The landlord’s evidence shows that they attended to all issues as they arose and were drawn to their attention. They acted promptly. The invoices also detail the repairs done, including to the oven. The narrations in the invoices differ from the tenants’ evidence. The tenants seemed to regard that with some suspicion. The Tribunal accepts the invoices and the narrations in them as correct and reliable.
Ms Belu accepted that the tenants had been inconvenienced by the time it took to replace the heat pump. That occurred during mid-winter and when the tenants had a newborn child. But it was time limited, and Ms Belu is correct in noting that the landlord did everything it reasonably could (although Ms Mitzel was suspicious about the landlord’s actions and the reason for the delay in obtaining the new heat pump).
That concession was appropriate and responsible.
The Tribunal is cautious when assessing claims such as this one where no applications were made by the tenants during the tenancy, where the application was made in response to the landlord’s application, and where some of the accusations levelled against the landlord are so starkly at odds with the objective evidence.
I accept that the tenants were inconvenienced by some repair issues, including the heat pump. I do not accept that the heat pump failed totally before June 2024 (the tenants notified the landlord on 9 July 2024) or that the oven did not work for the whole of the tenancy. The invoices sent to the landlord by its contractors (on which the landlord was entitled to rely) do not support that.
Although the tenants have formulated their claim for compensation in its component parts, the Tribunal takes a different view. It considers compensation on a global basis. Bearing in mind that there are no established breaches by the landlord (it did not ignore maintenance requests and acted promptly once notified) compensation can only be awarded for the tenants’ loss of use and enjoyment of the tenancy.
The tenants seek a rent abatement of $6,298.50 for the heat pump; $6,824.25 for the oven; $923.71 for the dishwasher; and $283.93 for what they say is a ‘no-cooking uplift’ – a total of $14,330.39.
That claim cannot succeed for 2 reasons. First, it is totally unrealistic. Second, rent can only abate when premises are destroyed (either fully or in part) and as a result become uninhabitable. That was not the case here.
For the tenants’ overall loss of enjoyment of the tenancy while repairs were being arranged and, in some case, delayed (through no fault of the landlord) I award them compensation of $1,500.00. This will include any additional electricity costs they incurred. They have not proved the amount they claim for increased power consumption as a separate head of claim. Other matters
As I have noted the Tribunal is not a forum for the resolution of general complaints. If the tenants felt that they were made to feel at fault, or that the landlord was retaliatory in their actions, or that Ms Belu was hostile, those are subjective feelings. Perhaps there was a personality clash, or unrealistic expectations. Whatever it was, there is nothing the Tribunal can do about it.
The tenants raised the issue of the rent being too high. The Tribunal seldom interferes with the setting of rents. A tenant can make an application for a market rent determination, but an application under section 25 RTA is strictly time framed and this application (if indeed it was an application for a market rent determination) appears to be well out of time. And the tenants provided no evidence on which the Tribunal could conclude that the rent exceeded the market rent ‘by a substantial amount’ as section 25 RTA requires.
That the tenants were offered a fixed term tenancy with no rent increase, or a periodic tenancy (which they chose) with a rent increase is simply part of the usual bargaining process.
Issues such as feeling pressured to allow access for viewings and end of tenancy discussions are part of the general complaints the tenants raised. I addressed that earlier. There is no order the Tribunal can make arising from those interactions between the parties. Result
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is proved. The landlord’s claim for carpet replacement (the insurance excess) is dismissed.
The tenants’ application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The tenants’ claim for compensation for their loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to delayed repairs (especially the heat pump) is successful in the amount of $1,500.00.
The landlord will therefore pay the tenants $1,394.99 - $1,500.00 less the rent arrears.
The bond will be paid to the tenants.
No order is made for reimbursement of the filing fees. Both parties have succeeded in part. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenants sought name suppression. I make no name suppression order as their application is only successful in small part 2 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5309467 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat C, 56 Brockworth Place, Riccarton, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5309467 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat C, 56 Brockworth Place, Riccarton, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

Have the tenants proved a claim for exemplary damages?

Have the tenants proved a claim for compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

Have the tenants proved a claim for exemplary damages?

Have the tenants proved a claim for compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions