What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5333359 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 5333359?

Compensation: Failure to maintain fl…: $11,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $5,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5333359?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5333359?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13065045-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5333359 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 5333359?

Compensation: Failure to maintain fl…: $11,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $5,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5333359?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5333359?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13065045-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5333359 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5333359 — net $16,428.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain flooring in kitchen and laundry	$11,400.00	Failure to maintain flooring in kitchen and laundry
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain flooring in kitchen and laundry	$5,000.00	44. The landlord is ordered to pay $5,000.00 in exemplary damages.
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$16,428.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$16,428.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5333359 — net $16,428.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain flooring in kitchen and laundry	$11,400.00	Failure to maintain flooring in kitchen and laundry
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain flooring in kitchen and laundry	$5,000.00	44. The landlord is ordered to pay $5,000.00 in exemplary damages.
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$16,428.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$16,428.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
must pay [The tenant/s] $16,428.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 29 January 2026.
The tenancy began on 24 February 2021 and is ongoing. The tenant claims the landlord has failed to maintain the flooring in the kitchen and laundry in a reasonable state of repair. They claim the flooring became soft after a leak in the plumbing in June 2023. They claim the damage was so bad their children fell through the floor and the landlord only completed repairs in late 2025 after the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) became involved. The issues I must determine are: a. Did the landlord fail to maintain the flooring in a reasonable state of repair? b. How much compensation should the landlord pay the tenant? c. Should exemplary damages be ordered? Standard of proof
The tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the flooring in a reasonable state of repair?

The law

Section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which they are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
A landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy it. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach. 2 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 3
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 4 Analysis
On 23 June 2023, the landlord completed an inspection at the premises. Following the inspection, the tenant sent the landlord an email summarising the maintenance issues to be addressed. The tenant’s email states: ...
Not too sure but I think the pipes under kitchen have come lose or something has water keeps coming below the kitchen cupboards on the floor which has made the floor sink in due to water ...
In response, the landlord organised for a plumber to visit the premises on 13 July 2023. The plumber’s invoice dated 21 July 2023 states that rats have chewed the 40mm waste line and pest control is needed before repairs can be completed.
The landlord engaged Select Home Services to undertake pest control at the premises. Once the rats were gone, the plumber revisited the premises and repaired the pipe. This happened on 21 September 2023. Ordinarily, a delay of three months to repair a leaking pipe might be considered unreasonable however, it took some time to get rid of the rats. The landlord submitted invoices from Select Home Services, which prove they quickly and diligently responded to the rat issue. Select Home Services attended the premises on 13 July 2023, 19 July 2023, 25 July 2023 and 2 August 2023. By the beginning of September 2023, the rats were gone. The plumber was engaged shortly thereafter to complete repairs.
Whilst the landlord might have investigated and remedied the leaking pipe within a reasonable timeframe, the flooring in the kitchen and laundry is a different story.
The tenant’s email sent to the landlord sent on 23 June 2023 mentions that the flooring in the kitchen is soft. The landlord gave evidence there were no signs of soft flooring in 2023 and submitted an inspection report dated 27 September 2023. The report does not note any issues with the flooring in the kitchen and no damage is visible in the photographs. On the balance of probabilities, I am 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 3 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 4 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. convinced the flooring in the kitchen was not in a state of disrepair in June or September 2023.
The landlord gave evidence that damage to the flooring in the kitchen and laundry was only noted in August 2025 however, I do not accept this. An inspection was completed on 11 April 2024 and the report states: Kitchen/meals: ...The flooring is very soft and dented due to the pipe chewed the rat cause flooding. Contact all things plumbing to check the waste dispenser. Tony everhope or SOS maintenance to access the floor. The stove is not working. Laundry: No visual leaks underneath the sink. The floor is dented in front of the washtub...
The tenant also sent the landlord an email on 11 April 2024 stating: Continuing on from Inspection Checklist: -Laundry floor sinking in due to water leakage -Kitchen floor as well sinking in due to water leakage from laundry ...
The landlord submitted a timeline of events, which lists the dates inspections were completed. The timeline notes, “Barfoot completed a routine inspection and noted the flooring was in poor condition”, on the following dates: a. 11/04/2024 b. 03/07/2024 c. 01/10/2024 d. 30/01/2025 e. 30/04/2025 f. 01/08/2025
All of this evidence convinces me that the flooring in the kitchen and laundry was in a state of disrepair on 11 April 2024 and the landlord was aware of the issue from this date.
The condition of the flooring deteriorated over time, especially in the kitchen. The tenant submitted photographs of the kitchen floor taken in 2025, which show three large tears in the laminate. The tenant gave evidence their children fell through the flooring in these areas. The tenant also submitted a photograph of the kitchen floor with a large piece of plywood over it. The tenant gave evidence they purchased the plywood to cover the flooring so that they could still use the kitchen. A photograph of the laundry was also submitted, which shows a large dent in the floor and peeling laminate.
In an attempt to get the landlord to complete repairs, the tenant reported the issue to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) who sent the landlord an improvement notice dated 8 September 2025. The notice states that the flooring in the kitchen and laundry is water damaged and must be repaired by 10 October 2025. The parties agree that the flooring was repaired by 1 October 2025.
The landlord first became aware of the state of the flooring in the kitchen and laundry on 11 April 2024. Repairs were not completed until 1 October 2025. That is a delay of approximately 76 weeks. Soft flooring inside a premises is a serious issue that should be prioritised. A delay of 76 weeks is unreasonable.
For these reasons, I find the landlord failed to maintain the flooring in the kitchen and laundry in a reasonable state of repair.

How much compensation should the landlord pay the tenant?

The law

The Tribunal may award compensation for losses arising from a proven breach by a landlord of the tenancy agreement or RTA.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 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. Analysis
The nature of the breach is serious. By failing to fix the flooring, the landlord seriously compromised the safety of the tenant and their family. The problem might have started off small, but it grew significantly over time. I accept the tenant’s evidence that their children fell through the flooring in 2025. The photograph of the kitchen floor with three large tears in it supports this statement.
The duration of the breach was long. It took approximately 76 weeks or 17 – 18 months before repairs were completed.
The breach had a significant, negative effect on the tenant. It posed a serious health and safety risk and the loss of amenity was great. By 2025, the state of the flooring, especially in the kitchen, meant this area was almost unusable. It was also a cause of mental stress for the tenant who gave evidence that they worried about the safety risk the flooring posed to their children.
In the case of Tenant v Crystal Realty Limited T/A Harcourts as agent for NNDS Ltd [2025] NZTT 5289219, the Tribunal found the landlord had failed to maintain the kitchen flooring in a reasonable state of repair. This was because it took the landlord three months to repair holes in the flooring. The Tribunal ordered compensation at a rate of $130.00 per week. I find the present case to be more serious, given the delay of 76 weeks for repairs to be completed. For this reason, compensation at a higher rate should be ordered in the present case.
Taking all of these factors into account, I find $150.00 per week to be reasonable.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $11,400.00.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

The law

Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered. 5
A tenant cannot apply for exemplary damages later than 12 months after the date of the commission of the unlawful act. 6 The date of the unlawful act is the date on which the act or omission that constitutes the breach occurred.
Section 109(3) RTA states that exemplary damages may be ordered if the Tribunal determines an unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just, having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first been served on the tenant. 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) & Schedule 1A. 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 109(2)(b).
Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal 7 that: Before an award for 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.
Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis, there was no intention established, therefore there was no basis to order exemplary damages. Analysis
The first issue I must determine is whether the tenant is within time to apply for exemplary damages.
The obligation of a landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is an ongoing one. Where there is a failure to maintain, this is generally considered a continuing breach. As long as the issue remains unremedied, the breach continues, and the 12-month limitation period for applying for exemplary damages runs from the last day the breach continued.
In this case, the flooring was fixed by 1 October 2025. This means that the last day of the breach was 30 September 2025. The tenant’s application was filed before this date on 25 August 2025. The tenant is well within the timeframe required to apply for exemplary damages.
The second issue I must determine is whether the landlord acted intentionally. I find that they did. This is because the landlord knew about the state of the flooring on 11 April 2024. They noted it again in multiple, subsequent inspections, yet nothing was done to fix it until MBIE sent an improvement notice. No reason for this was given at the hearing, other than the claim by Barfoot & Thompson Limited that they provided the owner with a quote for repairs and never received a response. This is not a good explanation.
The third issue I must determine is whether it is just to order exemplary damages. Having regard to the following factors, I find it is: 7 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act. I find the landlord acted intentionally. b. The effect of the unlawful act. The unlawful act seriously jeopardised the safety of the tenant and their children for a long period of time. It also severely detracted from the amenity of the premises. The poor state of the flooring endured for approximately 18 months and was only remedied once MBIE became involved. These are aggravating factors. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. The tenant has an interest in ensuring the flooring is repaired within a reasonable timeframe, as well as any other future maintenance issues. d. The public interest. There is a high public interest in ensuring that landlords are deterred from delaying repairs, especially to issues that pose a health and safety risk to tenants, such as soft flooring.
The usual approach of the Tribunal is to award one third of the maximum of exemplary damages, unless there are aggravating or excusing factors in play. 8 The aggravating factors noted above mean I find it appropriate to order more than one-third of the total.
The landlord is ordered to pay $5,000.00 in exemplary damages. Filing fee & name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I must grant their request for name suppression.
The landlord also seeks name suppression.
I have a discretion to grant the landlord name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the landlord and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
The landlord claims the problems in this case arose when the premises were managed by former property managers. They claim that publication of their name would not fairly reflect upon the way in which the premises are being managed today or the way in which Barfoot & Thompsons Limited is being run as company. 8 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781.
The fact that publication of the landlord’s name might negatively affect their reputation is a natural and ordinary consequence of Tribunal proceedings. It is not unusual or exceptional. The facts of this case are not unusual or exceptional either and no personal or sensitive information in relation to the landlord is discussed.
I have considered the interests of the landlord and public. I find the public’s interest in publication outweighs the landlord’s interest in suppression. For this reason, the landlord’s application for name suppression is declined

Tenancy Tribunal case 5333359 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5333359 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the flooring in a reasonable state of repair?

How much compensation should the landlord pay the tenant?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the flooring in a reasonable state of repair?

How much compensation should the landlord pay the tenant?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions