What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329892 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5329892?

Compensation: Locksmith Fee: $239.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Starlink Monthly Charg…: $237.00 awarded to tenant; Early Termination Fee: $1,450.35 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329892?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329892?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12694195-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329892 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5329892?

Compensation: Locksmith Fee: $239.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Starlink Monthly Charg…: $237.00 awarded to tenant; Early Termination Fee: $1,450.35 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329892?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329892?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12694195-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20A Higgins Street, Ravenswood, Waimakariri 7610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5329892 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5329892 — net $1,724.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lawn repairs	$750.00		Lawn repairs
Early Termination Fee	$1,450.35		Early Termination Fee
Compensation: Starlink Monthly Charges		$237.00	Starlink Monthly Charges
Compensation: Locksmith Fee		$239.00	Locksmith Fee
Total award	$2,200.35	$476.00
Net award	$1,724.35
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,724.35

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For Mark And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] / Gilby Property Limited $1,724.35 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (BN-00109100) immediately apportioned as follows: Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For Mark And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] / Gilby Property Limited: $1,724.34 [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $355.65

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant had applied for early release from a fixed term tenancy. The tenancy ended before the hearing, so the tenant’s claims were for compensation. The tenant had also sought a declaration that she was not required to pay an early termination fee.
The landlord had not made a cross application but sought compensation for lawn damage at the premises and payment of the early termination fee. With the consent of the parties, I have also heard and determined those issues. Background
The tenant alleges that the premises were not ready at the start of the tenancy. In particular, Ms Quinlan says that internet was not available at the property. She said that a stable internet connection was critical for her work requirements.
The premises were a new build. There are two new units on single section in Higgins St, Ravenswood.
The tenant viewed the premises before signing the tenancy agreement. She signed the agreement on 12 June 2025, for a fixed term tenancy starting on 20 June 2025.
On 13 June 2025, the tenant requested documents for address validation to get the internet connected. She followed up on 16 June, sending a list of information she needed including that the property can be connected to internet and can be located by OneNZ and Enable.
The landlord replied on 16 June 2025 and advised that there was an issue getting the fibre installed promptly and offered to meet the cost of a high-speed mobile plan so that the tenant could “hotspot” from her phone in the meantime.
The tenancy started on 20 June 2025. It appears that, when the tenant moved in, she discovered that her mobile phone coverage was patchy.
There was a flurry of emails on 23 June 2025. The landlord advised that fibre was approximately 6 weeks away. The tenant replied that 6 weeks was a long time and said that had she stipulated in an email before renting the property that internet was an “absolute requirement”. 1 The tenant also advised that she had meetings on the morning of 24 June and needed the landlord to supply and install a Starlink satellite system (on 23 June). The landlord replied the 1 That email was not provided in evidence and the landlord could not recall receiving it. following day, offering to meet the monthly Starlink cost but not the supply & installation of the hardware.
There is also an email headed “DRAFT” in the tenant’s documents. It is not clear whether that email was sent to the landlord but is consistent with the oral evidence of both parties at the hearing to the effect that the tenant had told the landlord that she needed stable internet for work and accepted that it could take two weeks from the start of the Tenancy for fibre to be installed. 2
The tenant was overseas from 14 July 2025 to 16 August 2025. When she returned there was an issue with the electronic lock fitted at the premises and she says that she had to call a locksmith to provide access.
While she was overseas she says that the tenant of the adjoining property had told her that fibre was available at the boundary. The tenant says that the fibre was not operational, and she could not have had fibre until mid-September.
The landlord provided a letter from Enable dated 21 August 2025 which records that Enable had reticulated its network to the boundary and as of 21 August 2025, the premises had service capability. An occupant would then have had to contract with a retail provider to connect to the fibre.
On 20 August 2025, the tenant advised that she was moving out, citing issues with this property and her previous rental as the reason she wanted to return to her own home (in another city). She agreed to meet the cost of early termination fees and pay rent until a new tenant was found. She also made an application to the Tribunal seeking early termination of the fixed term.
The tenant moved out on or about 9 September 2025. The Tenant’s Claims
Ms Quinlan claimed that the landlord had represented that internet would be available at the premises. She says the landlord failed to deliver on that representation. As a result, Ms Quinlan claims that she should be compensated and should not have to pay an early termination fee.
Ms Quinlan claimed that the premises did not comply with Healthy Homes Standards because she had to have the door open, creating a draught when operating the Starlink System.
She also raised peripheral issues about the readiness of the premises, but these appeared to be more by way of complaint than seeking any form of compensation. The issues were minor in any event. 2 Two weeks from 20 June 2025 would have been 4 July 2025.
Ms Quinlan also claimed that an electronic lock at the property malfunctioned and she had to engage a locksmith to fix this. She claimed the locksmith fee of $239.00. The Landlord’s Obligations
A landlord’s obligations in relation to internet connectivity are set out in s45B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The obligation is in respect of fibre only. There is no obligation to provide an alternative to fibre, and no obligation for a landlord to ensure that a tenant’s mobile phone provider provides adequate/consistent coverage to the premises.
Under section 45B, a landlord must, except in certain circumstances, permit the installation of a fibre connection in the premises if— a. there is no fibre connection in the premises; and b. it is possible to install a fibre connection in the premises; and c. the tenant requests a fibre connection; and d. the fibre connection can be installed at no cost to the landlord (for example, because the cost is covered by the UFB Initiative).
A landlord who is required to permit the installation of a fibre connection must take all reasonable steps to facilitate the installation within a reasonable period of time and respond to the tenant’s request or that of a network operator within 21 days of receiving a request.
The landlord must provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. If a lock is broken or not working, the landlord is required to repair or replace it to maintain reasonable security for the premises. See s46 RTA. Factual Findings in Relation to Tenant Claims
Ms Quinlan anticipated that there may be a two-week delay between the start of the tenancy and fibre being available. That is, she can not have expected to have a Fibre Connection for the critical meetings on 24 June. At the very least, she must have anticipated (when she signed the tenancy agreement) that she might have to make alternative arrangements for internet connectivity for those meetings.
If Ms Quinlan was intending to rely on her mobile phone provider for those meetings, her inability to do so has not been caused by a breach of the landlord’s obligations.
Ms Quinlan decided to purchase the Starlink dish after she realised that her mobile phone coverage was patchy and she could not hotspot. She had to run a cable from inside the premises to the dish outside. She left the door ajar to do that. These were her decisions.
I find that a fibre connection was available at the property in early September, at the latest. That is longer than the 6 weeks Ms Quinlan was advised in June 2025, and much longer than the two weeks she anticipated. However, I do not find that it was unreasonable in the circumstances. Ms Quinlan was overseas for five of those weeks. She was not, objectively, inconvenienced during that period.
There was a period of 10 days from 5 July until she left on 14 July when she had expected to be connected to the internet. She did not provide any evidence of critical connection requirements during that time. By the time she returned on 18 August, she was aware that fibre was now at the boundary. It may have been another two weeks before the fibre was connected. However, Ms Quinlan decided to move before that could be progressed.
I accept Ms Quinlan’s evidence that there was an issue with the electronic lock malfunctioning on her return from overseas. She would not have called an after-hours locksmith if the lock was working. She has provided a receipt for the call-out. Result – Tenant Claims
Ms Quinlan did not demonstrate that any of the grounds for early termination of the tenancy have been met. See s66(2) RTA. The delay in fibre being available at the property is not a reason to allow early termination from the tenancy.
Ms Quinlan did not establish that the landlord should pay any compensation for the fibre connection taking longer than initially anticipated. However, the landlord acknowledged the delay and offered to pay the monthly Starlink charges. It remains willing to meet that cost. I have made an order accordingly.
All other claims in relation to the internet connection are dismissed. For completeness, I record that Ms Quinlan’s decision to use the Starlink service and run a cable outside to do so, does not make the premises non-compliant with the draught stopping standard.
I also find that Ms Quinlan is liable for the break lease fee. Her decision to leave the tenancy two months into the 12-month fixed term may have been influenced by the fibre delay, but it was not the only reason. Her email to the landlord on 20 August also notes issues with a previous tenancy and a desire to return to her own home. She agreed to meet the early termination fee and pay rent until a new tenant was found. The landlord is under no obligation to find a replacement tenant but did so. The landlord also provided an estimate and properly itemised account of the break lease fee. I award the landlord $1,450.35.
I award Ms Quinlan the amount claimed for the locksmith call out charge. Landlord Claim – Lawn Damage.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The new lawn suffered extensive pet damage during the short duration of the tenancy. Ms Quinlan said the damage was fair wear and tear in circumstances where a pet was allowed. She also said that she tried to repair the lawn, in accordance with the landlord’s instructions/recommendations and it is those areas which have remained damaged.
I do not accept those submissions. There are far more dead patches in the lawn than I would have expected for a tenancy of just over two months (and with the dog away from the property for at least a month of that). The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. However, the landlord must have expected some damage when allowing a dog in such a small outside area. I award the landlord repair costs of $750.00.
I do not consider that Ms Quinlan was substantially successful and have not awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee or granted her request for suppression of her details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5329892 — net $1,724.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lawn repairs	$750.00		Lawn repairs
Early Termination Fee	$1,450.35		Early Termination Fee
Compensation: Starlink Monthly Charges		$237.00	Starlink Monthly Charges
Compensation: Locksmith Fee		$239.00	Locksmith Fee
Total award	$2,200.35	$476.00
Net award	$1,724.35
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,724.35

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For Mark And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] / Gilby Property Limited $1,724.35 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (BN-00109100) immediately apportioned as follows: Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For Mark And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] / Gilby Property Limited: $1,724.34 [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $355.65

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant had applied for early release from a fixed term tenancy. The tenancy ended before the hearing, so the tenant’s claims were for compensation. The tenant had also sought a declaration that she was not required to pay an early termination fee.
The landlord had not made a cross application but sought compensation for lawn damage at the premises and payment of the early termination fee. With the consent of the parties, I have also heard and determined those issues. Background
The tenant alleges that the premises were not ready at the start of the tenancy. In particular, Ms Quinlan says that internet was not available at the property. She said that a stable internet connection was critical for her work requirements.
The premises were a new build. There are two new units on single section in Higgins St, Ravenswood.
The tenant viewed the premises before signing the tenancy agreement. She signed the agreement on 12 June 2025, for a fixed term tenancy starting on 20 June 2025.
On 13 June 2025, the tenant requested documents for address validation to get the internet connected. She followed up on 16 June, sending a list of information she needed including that the property can be connected to internet and can be located by OneNZ and Enable.
The landlord replied on 16 June 2025 and advised that there was an issue getting the fibre installed promptly and offered to meet the cost of a high-speed mobile plan so that the tenant could “hotspot” from her phone in the meantime.
The tenancy started on 20 June 2025. It appears that, when the tenant moved in, she discovered that her mobile phone coverage was patchy.
There was a flurry of emails on 23 June 2025. The landlord advised that fibre was approximately 6 weeks away. The tenant replied that 6 weeks was a long time and said that had she stipulated in an email before renting the property that internet was an “absolute requirement”. 1 The tenant also advised that she had meetings on the morning of 24 June and needed the landlord to supply and install a Starlink satellite system (on 23 June). The landlord replied the 1 That email was not provided in evidence and the landlord could not recall receiving it. following day, offering to meet the monthly Starlink cost but not the supply & installation of the hardware.
There is also an email headed “DRAFT” in the tenant’s documents. It is not clear whether that email was sent to the landlord but is consistent with the oral evidence of both parties at the hearing to the effect that the tenant had told the landlord that she needed stable internet for work and accepted that it could take two weeks from the start of the Tenancy for fibre to be installed. 2
The tenant was overseas from 14 July 2025 to 16 August 2025. When she returned there was an issue with the electronic lock fitted at the premises and she says that she had to call a locksmith to provide access.
While she was overseas she says that the tenant of the adjoining property had told her that fibre was available at the boundary. The tenant says that the fibre was not operational, and she could not have had fibre until mid-September.
The landlord provided a letter from Enable dated 21 August 2025 which records that Enable had reticulated its network to the boundary and as of 21 August 2025, the premises had service capability. An occupant would then have had to contract with a retail provider to connect to the fibre.
On 20 August 2025, the tenant advised that she was moving out, citing issues with this property and her previous rental as the reason she wanted to return to her own home (in another city). She agreed to meet the cost of early termination fees and pay rent until a new tenant was found. She also made an application to the Tribunal seeking early termination of the fixed term.
The tenant moved out on or about 9 September 2025. The Tenant’s Claims
Ms Quinlan claimed that the landlord had represented that internet would be available at the premises. She says the landlord failed to deliver on that representation. As a result, Ms Quinlan claims that she should be compensated and should not have to pay an early termination fee.
Ms Quinlan claimed that the premises did not comply with Healthy Homes Standards because she had to have the door open, creating a draught when operating the Starlink System.
She also raised peripheral issues about the readiness of the premises, but these appeared to be more by way of complaint than seeking any form of compensation. The issues were minor in any event. 2 Two weeks from 20 June 2025 would have been 4 July 2025.
Ms Quinlan also claimed that an electronic lock at the property malfunctioned and she had to engage a locksmith to fix this. She claimed the locksmith fee of $239.00. The Landlord’s Obligations
A landlord’s obligations in relation to internet connectivity are set out in s45B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The obligation is in respect of fibre only. There is no obligation to provide an alternative to fibre, and no obligation for a landlord to ensure that a tenant’s mobile phone provider provides adequate/consistent coverage to the premises.
Under section 45B, a landlord must, except in certain circumstances, permit the installation of a fibre connection in the premises if— a. there is no fibre connection in the premises; and b. it is possible to install a fibre connection in the premises; and c. the tenant requests a fibre connection; and d. the fibre connection can be installed at no cost to the landlord (for example, because the cost is covered by the UFB Initiative).
A landlord who is required to permit the installation of a fibre connection must take all reasonable steps to facilitate the installation within a reasonable period of time and respond to the tenant’s request or that of a network operator within 21 days of receiving a request.
The landlord must provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. If a lock is broken or not working, the landlord is required to repair or replace it to maintain reasonable security for the premises. See s46 RTA. Factual Findings in Relation to Tenant Claims
Ms Quinlan anticipated that there may be a two-week delay between the start of the tenancy and fibre being available. That is, she can not have expected to have a Fibre Connection for the critical meetings on 24 June. At the very least, she must have anticipated (when she signed the tenancy agreement) that she might have to make alternative arrangements for internet connectivity for those meetings.
If Ms Quinlan was intending to rely on her mobile phone provider for those meetings, her inability to do so has not been caused by a breach of the landlord’s obligations.
Ms Quinlan decided to purchase the Starlink dish after she realised that her mobile phone coverage was patchy and she could not hotspot. She had to run a cable from inside the premises to the dish outside. She left the door ajar to do that. These were her decisions.
I find that a fibre connection was available at the property in early September, at the latest. That is longer than the 6 weeks Ms Quinlan was advised in June 2025, and much longer than the two weeks she anticipated. However, I do not find that it was unreasonable in the circumstances. Ms Quinlan was overseas for five of those weeks. She was not, objectively, inconvenienced during that period.
There was a period of 10 days from 5 July until she left on 14 July when she had expected to be connected to the internet. She did not provide any evidence of critical connection requirements during that time. By the time she returned on 18 August, she was aware that fibre was now at the boundary. It may have been another two weeks before the fibre was connected. However, Ms Quinlan decided to move before that could be progressed.
I accept Ms Quinlan’s evidence that there was an issue with the electronic lock malfunctioning on her return from overseas. She would not have called an after-hours locksmith if the lock was working. She has provided a receipt for the call-out. Result – Tenant Claims
Ms Quinlan did not demonstrate that any of the grounds for early termination of the tenancy have been met. See s66(2) RTA. The delay in fibre being available at the property is not a reason to allow early termination from the tenancy.
Ms Quinlan did not establish that the landlord should pay any compensation for the fibre connection taking longer than initially anticipated. However, the landlord acknowledged the delay and offered to pay the monthly Starlink charges. It remains willing to meet that cost. I have made an order accordingly.
All other claims in relation to the internet connection are dismissed. For completeness, I record that Ms Quinlan’s decision to use the Starlink service and run a cable outside to do so, does not make the premises non-compliant with the draught stopping standard.
I also find that Ms Quinlan is liable for the break lease fee. Her decision to leave the tenancy two months into the 12-month fixed term may have been influenced by the fibre delay, but it was not the only reason. Her email to the landlord on 20 August also notes issues with a previous tenancy and a desire to return to her own home. She agreed to meet the early termination fee and pay rent until a new tenant was found. The landlord is under no obligation to find a replacement tenant but did so. The landlord also provided an estimate and properly itemised account of the break lease fee. I award the landlord $1,450.35.
I award Ms Quinlan the amount claimed for the locksmith call out charge. Landlord Claim – Lawn Damage.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The new lawn suffered extensive pet damage during the short duration of the tenancy. Ms Quinlan said the damage was fair wear and tear in circumstances where a pet was allowed. She also said that she tried to repair the lawn, in accordance with the landlord’s instructions/recommendations and it is those areas which have remained damaged.
I do not accept those submissions. There are far more dead patches in the lawn than I would have expected for a tenancy of just over two months (and with the dog away from the property for at least a month of that). The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. However, the landlord must have expected some damage when allowing a dog in such a small outside area. I award the landlord repair costs of $750.00.
I do not consider that Ms Quinlan was substantially successful and have not awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee or granted her request for suppression of her details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5329892 — Property damage at 20A Higgins Street, Ravenswood, Waimakariri 7610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5329892 — Property damage at 20A Higgins Street, Ravenswood, Waimakariri 7610

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.