What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328619 about?

The tribunal order states: Oneciti Building Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $908.00 immediately, as set out in the table below.

How much money was awarded in case 5328619?

Compensation: $880.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328619?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328619?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12749059-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328619 about?

The tribunal order states: Oneciti Building Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $908.00 immediately, as set out in the table below.

How much money was awarded in case 5328619?

Compensation: $880.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328619?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328619?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12749059-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3P, 17 Blake Street, Ponsonby, Auckland 1011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5328619 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328619 — net $908.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$880.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$908.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$908.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenancy commenced on 25 June 2025 and was for a fixed term due to end on 21 December 2025.

The tenants signed the tenancy agreement while overseas and before arriving in New Zealand. They plan to live in New Zealand for six months.

The tenant applied for a work order to fix maintenance issues at the premises but at the date of hearing these issues have been fixed so a work order is not required.

The tenant seeks compensation relating to the maintenance issues and the TV.

The issues identified were the lack of hot water, the oven timer that did not work and the lack of TV.

The tenant says that the hot water was not fully working from the beginning of the tenancy but this was only reported to the landlord on 15 July 2025.

The landlord can only respond to maintenance issues if they are made aware of them. The landlord arranged for the hot water issue to be fixed on 18 August 2025.

The landlord attributes some of the delay to the tenant for not responding to communication but there was no evidence of that. Also, the landlord says that hot water issue was for the whole building but there is no evidence of that, and the building manager only provided a verbal report to the landlord as to the reason for the issue.

The reality is that the tenant did not have fully working hot water for a period of 34 days (15 July to 18 July). I consider that the tenant should be compensated for this. I award compensation of $680.00 for the hot water which is calculated at $20.00 per day.

The tenant complained that the oven could not be used because the oven timer was not working. There is no evidence that the oven was not able to be used when the timer was not working. The tenant’s claim for compensation in relation to the oven timer is dismissed.

As the tenant was overseas when the tenancy agreement was signed, the landlord had provided the tenant with a video recording of the premises. At the hearing the tenant produced that video recording. In the lounge area there is a television.

The landlord sent the tenant an email dated 13 June 2025 which stated, “The apartment is furnished. All furniture you saw in the video will be staying.” Relying on this information the tenant signed the tenancy agreement that same day.

The tenancy agreement records that no chattels are provided. Instead, the landlord said that they provide tenants with a welcome pack when they move in and included in that pack is a chattels list. This means that the tenants have no opportunity before signing the tenancy agreement to consider the chattels provided. Also, the Residential Tenancies Act 1 provides that the tenancy agreement must have a list of any chattels provided by the landlord.

The tenancy agreement should have included a chattels list. The result in this situation is that this tenant has purchased a television while only in New Zealand for a short period because they were unable to rely on the representation of the landlord.

The tenant had asked for the landlord to purchase the television from him for $600.00. This was refused. I consider that the tenant should be compensated, and I award $200.00 for this inconvenience. I note that the television purchased by the tenant will likely be able to be sold second hand to recoup some of the expense.

The total award of compensation is $880.00.

Because [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328619 — net $908.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$880.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$908.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$908.00

Order

Oneciti Building Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $908.00 immediately, as set out in the table below.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 25 June 2025 and was for a fixed term due to end on 21 December 2025.
The tenants signed the tenancy agreement while overseas and before arriving in New Zealand. They plan to live in New Zealand for six months.
The tenant applied for a work order to fix maintenance issues at the premises but at the date of hearing these issues have been fixed so a work order is not required.
The tenant seeks compensation relating to the maintenance issues and the TV.
The issues identified were the lack of hot water, the oven timer that did not work and the lack of TV.
The tenant says that the hot water was not fully working from the beginning of the tenancy but this was only reported to the landlord on 15 July 2025.
The landlord can only respond to maintenance issues if they are made aware of them. The landlord arranged for the hot water issue to be fixed on 18 August 2025.
The landlord attributes some of the delay to the tenant for not responding to communication but there was no evidence of that. Also, the landlord says that hot water issue was for the whole building but there is no evidence of that, and the building manager only provided a verbal report to the landlord as to the reason for the issue.
The reality is that the tenant did not have fully working hot water for a period of 34 days (15 July to 18 July). I consider that the tenant should be compensated for this. I award compensation of $680.00 for the hot water which is calculated at $20.00 per day.
The tenant complained that the oven could not be used because the oven timer was not working. There is no evidence that the oven was not able to be used when the timer was not working. The tenant’s claim for compensation in relation to the oven timer is dismissed.
As the tenant was overseas when the tenancy agreement was signed, the landlord had provided the tenant with a video recording of the premises. At the hearing the tenant produced that video recording. In the lounge area there is a television.
The landlord sent the tenant an email dated 13 June 2025 which stated, “The apartment is furnished. All furniture you saw in the video will be staying.” Relying on this information the tenant signed the tenancy agreement that same day.
The tenancy agreement records that no chattels are provided. Instead, the landlord said that they provide tenants with a welcome pack when they move in and included in that pack is a chattels list. This means that the tenants have no opportunity before signing the tenancy agreement to consider the chattels provided. Also, the Residential Tenancies Act 1 provides that the tenancy agreement must have a list of any chattels provided by the landlord.
The tenancy agreement should have included a chattels list. The result in this situation is that this tenant has purchased a television while only in New Zealand for a short period because they were unable to rely on the representation of the landlord.
The tenant had asked for the landlord to purchase the television from him for $600.00. This was refused. I consider that the tenant should be compensated, and I award $200.00 for this inconvenience. I note that the television purchased by the tenant will likely be able to be sold second hand to recoup some of the expense.
The total award of compensation is $880.00.
Because [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328619 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 3P, 17 Blake Street, Ponsonby, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328619 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 3P, 17 Blake Street, Ponsonby, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions