What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5313820 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 5313820?

Compensation: $735.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313820?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5313820?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12858009-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5313820 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 5313820?

Compensation: $735.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313820?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5313820?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12858009-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5313820 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5313820 — net $763.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$735.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$763.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$763.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant claims compensation for $735.00 that she says the landlord agreed to pay her, due to issues with a broken dishwasher.

The landlord disputes the claim. Background

In November 2024 the dishwasher at the tenancy address failed and the tenant advised the landlord.

In April 2025 the dishwasher still had not been fixed and the tenant requested urgent action and made a request for $35.00 a week to be refunded for the duration that she did not have use of the dishwasher, that at the time was $735.00.

On 24 April 2025 the tenant issued a formal notice to fix the dishwasher, requiring repair by 31 May 2025.

On 30 April 2025 the dishwasher was repaired, and the tenant again reminded the landlord of the money owed.

On 1 May 2025 the landlord advised the tenant that they needed to pay WINZ rather than the tenant directly (due to the rent payment being a redirection from WINZ).

On 7 May 2025 the tenant followed up with the landlord as to whether payment had been made, requesting proof of payment so she could discuss it with WINZ. The tenant followed up again on 13 May 2025.

On 16 May 2025 the landlord says that the breach notice was fulfilled by repair only, and not repayment. However, they proceeded to ask for repayment instructions. The tenant provided the payment instructions for WINZ.

On 3 July 2025 the landlord had still not made payment, and correspondence shows that they believed there were errors in the payment information provided.

The landlord now says that there was no agreement to make any payment and disputes that they now owe $735.00. Discussion

I need to first consider whether there was an agreement between the parties for payment of the $735.00 as compensation for the time taken to repair the dishwasher.

In the tenant’s email on 24 April 2025 to the landlord, the tenant requested a total payment of $735.00 as she had not had use of the dishwasher.

On 1 May 2025, the landlord responds: “Regarding your request for compensation on the issue, have spoken with my director on the issue. We note that your rental payments come from Work and Income, and as per their policy, we are required to make the payments back to them. Please advise if you are happy for me to proceed with this, and we will arrange for these funds to be returned to Work and Income.”

On the same day the tenant responded: “Yes please go ahead”.

There was further correspondence between the parties, with the tenant providing payment details and on 17 May 2025, the landlord emailed advising “we will be in touch once [the payment is] processed and appreciate your patience while we do so.” A further email was sent on 22 May 2025, advising that the name and number did not match, and again requesting the correct bank account details for the refund and advising that they could not make payment until the account details are confirmed and correct.

On review of the correspondence, I am satisfied that there was an offer to settle the dispute by the tenant that included repair and a compensation amount, the landlord responded with a counteroffer (the payment had to be paid to WINZ), and the tenant then accepted this.

There is no requirement for there to be explicit written acceptance of every term for there to be an agreement. Implied acceptance of an agreement can include acting in accordance with the agreement, or parties starting to perform their obligations.

Here the landlord did start to perform their obligations by requesting payment and account information, even if they did not complete the payment.

I am satisfied that here there was an agreement between the parties and the landlord is to pay the tenant $735.00.

There is no requirement for this compensation to be paid to WINZ under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The relationship between the tenant and WINZ is separate to that between the landlord and the tenant.

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

The tenant sought name suppression and as she has been wholly successful, this is granted. The landlord did not seek name suppression. R Harvey-Lane 11 December 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5313820 — net $763.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$735.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$763.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$763.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Taylor Property Plus (2006) Limited Samuel Taylor must pay [The tenant/s] $763.00 immediately, as calculated in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims compensation for $735.00 that she says the landlord agreed to pay her, due to issues with a broken dishwasher.
The landlord disputes the claim. Background
In November 2024 the dishwasher at the tenancy address failed and the tenant advised the landlord.
In April 2025 the dishwasher still had not been fixed and the tenant requested urgent action and made a request for $35.00 a week to be refunded for the duration that she did not have use of the dishwasher, that at the time was $735.00.
On 24 April 2025 the tenant issued a formal notice to fix the dishwasher, requiring repair by 31 May 2025.
On 30 April 2025 the dishwasher was repaired, and the tenant again reminded the landlord of the money owed.
On 1 May 2025 the landlord advised the tenant that they needed to pay WINZ rather than the tenant directly (due to the rent payment being a redirection from WINZ).
On 7 May 2025 the tenant followed up with the landlord as to whether payment had been made, requesting proof of payment so she could discuss it with WINZ. The tenant followed up again on 13 May 2025.
On 16 May 2025 the landlord says that the breach notice was fulfilled by repair only, and not repayment. However, they proceeded to ask for repayment instructions. The tenant provided the payment instructions for WINZ.
On 3 July 2025 the landlord had still not made payment, and correspondence shows that they believed there were errors in the payment information provided.
The landlord now says that there was no agreement to make any payment and disputes that they now owe $735.00. Discussion
I need to first consider whether there was an agreement between the parties for payment of the $735.00 as compensation for the time taken to repair the dishwasher.
In the tenant’s email on 24 April 2025 to the landlord, the tenant requested a total payment of $735.00 as she had not had use of the dishwasher.
On 1 May 2025, the landlord responds: “Regarding your request for compensation on the issue, have spoken with my director on the issue. We note that your rental payments come from Work and Income, and as per their policy, we are required to make the payments back to them. Please advise if you are happy for me to proceed with this, and we will arrange for these funds to be returned to Work and Income.”
On the same day the tenant responded: “Yes please go ahead”.
There was further correspondence between the parties, with the tenant providing payment details and on 17 May 2025, the landlord emailed advising “we will be in touch once [the payment is] processed and appreciate your patience while we do so.” A further email was sent on 22 May 2025, advising that the name and number did not match, and again requesting the correct bank account details for the refund and advising that they could not make payment until the account details are confirmed and correct.
On review of the correspondence, I am satisfied that there was an offer to settle the dispute by the tenant that included repair and a compensation amount, the landlord responded with a counteroffer (the payment had to be paid to WINZ), and the tenant then accepted this.
There is no requirement for there to be explicit written acceptance of every term for there to be an agreement. Implied acceptance of an agreement can include acting in accordance with the agreement, or parties starting to perform their obligations.
Here the landlord did start to perform their obligations by requesting payment and account information, even if they did not complete the payment.
I am satisfied that here there was an agreement between the parties and the landlord is to pay the tenant $735.00.
There is no requirement for this compensation to be paid to WINZ under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The relationship between the tenant and WINZ is separate to that between the landlord and the tenant.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must also reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant sought name suppression and as she has been wholly successful, this is granted. The landlord did not seek name suppression. R Harvey-Lane 11 December 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313820 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313820 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions