What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5334319 about?

The tribunal order states: Baljinder Kaur and Jashanpreet Singh must pay Amandeep Singh Sablok

How much money was awarded in case 5334319?

Compensation: Failure to provide pre…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Fixed Water Charge: $228.47 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $8,000.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $135.76 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5334319?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5334319?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13519540-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5334319 about?

The tribunal order states: Baljinder Kaur and Jashanpreet Singh must pay Amandeep Singh Sablok

How much money was awarded in case 5334319?

Compensation: Failure to provide pre…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Fixed Water Charge: $228.47 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $8,000.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $135.76 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5334319?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5334319?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13519540-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1 Lorenzo Way, Flat Bush, Auckland 2016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5334319 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5334319 — net $4,407.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$8,000.00		Rent arrears
Water rates	$135.76		Water rates
Compensation: Failure to provide premsies in reasonable		$500.00	Failure to provide premsies in reasonable
Fixed water charge		$228.47	Fixed water charge
Total award	$8,135.76	$728.47
Net award	$4,407.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,407.29

Order

Baljinder Kaur and Jashanpreet Singh must pay Amandeep Singh Sablok $4,407.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Baljinder Kaur represented both tenants.
This was a partial rehearing to consider the tenants claims, bar the refund of the fixed water charges. I am not bound by the previous determination on the claims ordered to be reheard. It is open to dismiss or determine a monetary amount lower as well as higher than previously awarded.
The order for the rehearing noted in the Reasons:
As such, the tenant claim for compensation of $9,128.47 is heard anew.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
This tenancy commenced 30 September 2025 on a one-year fixed term. It ended prior. The landlord was previously the owner-occupier who was moving overseas. The tenants were introduced via word of mouth. The tenant claims

Were the premises provided in a reasonably clean state?

Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires the landlord shall provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
A reasonable state of cleanliness is not an absolute standard and does not require premises to be immaculate. “Reasonably clean” means to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable (Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT213/93, 8 February 1993). Whether or not a landlord has failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness involves an objective assessment and takes into account the age, and general condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
There was photographic evidence of boxes and other rubbish left in the backyard and shed. The landlord had sold a mattress, couch and fridge but the removal by the purchaser was not expected for 2-3 weeks. The landlord stated he had explained this to the one tenant, Jashan, who was present at commencement. He said this was agreed to. Baljinder was overseas at the time.
There were also items left behind. The tenants claim of loss of amenity in the shed, garage and one bedroom due to this are not proven to the required standard. The landlord’s evidence of some beneficial use of a number of these items balances some of the possible impact, as does the lack of any clear request from the tenants for the removal of them.
The landlord was receiving rent from commencement but failed to ensure his obligations were met at that time. It was not feasible nor reasonable for the tenants to delay their move to allow the landlord to complete the exit properly. They had to remove some rubbish or store/move other items left.

Did the landlord fail to maintain?

It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to remedy a plumbing issue in the master bedroom ensuite. The tenant claimed both a basin and shower required attention but based on the evidence provided it appears the concern raised related to the basin only.
The issue may have been raised verbally but the written evidence confirms notice in mid-December 2025 with the repair finally completed in mid-February 2026. I heard a delay was caused by both an injury to the plumber as well as the seasonal holiday period.

Should the tenants be compensated?

Section 77(2)(n) RTA allows the Tribunal to grant general damages where a landlord or a tenant has breached a provision of the RTA. These damages can include an amount for distress and pain and suffering.
In Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993 (upheld in the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust, CIV-2018-009-002094 [2020] NZDC 17667) sets out the factors that the Tribunal should take into account when making a damages award, being: a. The nature of the breach b. The duration of the breach c. The effect of the breach.
The nature of the landlord breaches may on the face of it appear minor with some resolution or mutual agreement appearing to have been reached at the time. Any impact from the period of any loss of the effective use of the basin appears minimal and the duration before repair, while longer than might usually be expected, had some external influencing factors.
I do not consider the tenants are estopped from seeking compensation now as there was no prior agreement regarding the failures. The fact none was sought at the time is also part of the overall consideration of the intent and impact at the time.
Having considered the proven failures of the landlord, I consider it appropriate to make an award of general compensation of $500.00, being $450.00 for the circumstances at commencement and retained items, and $50.00 for the extended loss of the use of the basin in the master bedroom. Exemplary damages
The first order included an order for exemplary damages due to the landlord failing to appoint a local agent while overseas.
I raised this at the hearing as I did not see any application for such an order. No direction to such an application was provided by Bajinder. The fact the landlord was overseas without an agent is not disputed but the Tribunal cannot order such exemplary damages if they have not been specifically applied for by a party.
I do not consider the tenant has sought exemplary damages and I make no such order. However, the landlord’s failure to appoint an agent has “gone into the mix” when considering cause and compensation for the failures as established.
I reiterated to the parties that a rehearing such as here is conducted “fresh” and I am not bound by any prior order that is to be reheard.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5334319 — net $4,407.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$8,000.00		Rent arrears
Water rates	$135.76		Water rates
Compensation: Failure to provide premsies in reasonable		$500.00	Failure to provide premsies in reasonable
Fixed water charge		$228.47	Fixed water charge
Total award	$8,135.76	$728.47
Net award	$4,407.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,407.29

Order

Baljinder Kaur and Jashanpreet Singh must pay Amandeep Singh Sablok $4,407.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Baljinder Kaur represented both tenants.
This was a partial rehearing to consider the tenants claims, bar the refund of the fixed water charges. I am not bound by the previous determination on the claims ordered to be reheard. It is open to dismiss or determine a monetary amount lower as well as higher than previously awarded.
The order for the rehearing noted in the Reasons:
As such, the tenant claim for compensation of $9,128.47 is heard anew.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
This tenancy commenced 30 September 2025 on a one-year fixed term. It ended prior. The landlord was previously the owner-occupier who was moving overseas. The tenants were introduced via word of mouth. The tenant claims

Were the premises provided in a reasonably clean state?

Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires the landlord shall provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
A reasonable state of cleanliness is not an absolute standard and does not require premises to be immaculate. “Reasonably clean” means to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable (Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT213/93, 8 February 1993). Whether or not a landlord has failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness involves an objective assessment and takes into account the age, and general condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
There was photographic evidence of boxes and other rubbish left in the backyard and shed. The landlord had sold a mattress, couch and fridge but the removal by the purchaser was not expected for 2-3 weeks. The landlord stated he had explained this to the one tenant, Jashan, who was present at commencement. He said this was agreed to. Baljinder was overseas at the time.
There were also items left behind. The tenants claim of loss of amenity in the shed, garage and one bedroom due to this are not proven to the required standard. The landlord’s evidence of some beneficial use of a number of these items balances some of the possible impact, as does the lack of any clear request from the tenants for the removal of them.
The landlord was receiving rent from commencement but failed to ensure his obligations were met at that time. It was not feasible nor reasonable for the tenants to delay their move to allow the landlord to complete the exit properly. They had to remove some rubbish or store/move other items left.

Did the landlord fail to maintain?

It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to remedy a plumbing issue in the master bedroom ensuite. The tenant claimed both a basin and shower required attention but based on the evidence provided it appears the concern raised related to the basin only.
The issue may have been raised verbally but the written evidence confirms notice in mid-December 2025 with the repair finally completed in mid-February 2026. I heard a delay was caused by both an injury to the plumber as well as the seasonal holiday period.

Should the tenants be compensated?

Section 77(2)(n) RTA allows the Tribunal to grant general damages where a landlord or a tenant has breached a provision of the RTA. These damages can include an amount for distress and pain and suffering.
In Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993 (upheld in the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust, CIV-2018-009-002094 [2020] NZDC 17667) sets out the factors that the Tribunal should take into account when making a damages award, being: a. The nature of the breach b. The duration of the breach c. The effect of the breach.
The nature of the landlord breaches may on the face of it appear minor with some resolution or mutual agreement appearing to have been reached at the time. Any impact from the period of any loss of the effective use of the basin appears minimal and the duration before repair, while longer than might usually be expected, had some external influencing factors.
I do not consider the tenants are estopped from seeking compensation now as there was no prior agreement regarding the failures. The fact none was sought at the time is also part of the overall consideration of the intent and impact at the time.
Having considered the proven failures of the landlord, I consider it appropriate to make an award of general compensation of $500.00, being $450.00 for the circumstances at commencement and retained items, and $50.00 for the extended loss of the use of the basin in the master bedroom. Exemplary damages
The first order included an order for exemplary damages due to the landlord failing to appoint a local agent while overseas.
I raised this at the hearing as I did not see any application for such an order. No direction to such an application was provided by Bajinder. The fact the landlord was overseas without an agent is not disputed but the Tribunal cannot order such exemplary damages if they have not been specifically applied for by a party.
I do not consider the tenant has sought exemplary damages and I make no such order. However, the landlord’s failure to appoint an agent has “gone into the mix” when considering cause and compensation for the failures as established.
I reiterated to the parties that a rehearing such as here is conducted “fresh” and I am not bound by any prior order that is to be reheard.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5334319 — Rent arrears at 1 Lorenzo Way, Flat Bush, Auckland 2016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5334319 — Rent arrears at 1 Lorenzo Way, Flat Bush, Auckland 2016

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Were the premises provided in a reasonably clean state?

Did the landlord fail to maintain?

Should the tenants be compensated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Were the premises provided in a reasonably clean state?

Did the landlord fail to maintain?

Should the tenants be compensated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions