What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5335321 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for name suppression is refused.

How much money was awarded in case 5335321?

Compensation: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,300.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $5,238.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5335321?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5335321?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12515090-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5335321 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for name suppression is refused.

How much money was awarded in case 5335321?

Compensation: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,300.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $5,238.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5335321?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5335321?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12515090-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

125 Settlement Road, Kurow, 9435 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5335321 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5335321 — net $438.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 22 September 2025	$5,238.57		Rent arrears to 22 September 2025
Compensation		$1,500.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages		$3,300.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$5,238.57	$4,800.00
Net award	$438.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$438.57

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5335321 — net $438.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 22 September 2025	$5,238.57		Rent arrears to 22 September 2025
Compensation		$1,500.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages		$3,300.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$5,238.57	$4,800.00
Net award	$438.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$438.57

Order

The landlord’s application for name suppression is refused.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $438.57 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,081.43 to [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and $438.57 to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The hearing on 6 October 2025 was intended to be an in-person hearing at Timaru. I had a Covid infection at the time and so the hearing was conducted remotely. The parties were all present at the Timaru District Court and I conducted the hearing by telephone.
The first of these three applications was filed by the landlord who claimed possession following service and expiry of a termination notice based of his intention to occupy the premises.
That was followed by the tenant’s application for compensation and exemplary damages for various alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations.
The third application was filed by property managers, LJ Hooker Oamaru, on behalf of the landlord, for rent arrears following the end of the tenancy.
I have not named LJ Hooker in this order because they have acted purely as the landlord’s agent.
The landlord’s claim for possession was dismissed by the Tribunal’s order made on 1 July 2025. This order should be read together with that order. That order found that the landlord’s termination notice was both retaliatory and unlawful. Some More Background
This tenancy began in September 2024 and ended in September 2025.
The tenant was looking for accommodation in Kurow while she was building a house for herself to live in. Accommodation in the area was scarce, and the premises were not being advertised. The tenant contacted the landlord through his mother who has a shop in Kurow. The parties entered into a periodic tenancy agreement which both envisaged would be for a short term. The tenant expected to move into her new home in about January 2025.
I note that the landlord’s obligations don’t change in these circumstances, but the context is relevant when considering the tenant’s claims, especially when considering what remedy, if any, is appropriate for the landlord’s breach of obligation.
There were a few issues with the premises in the early stages but nothing serious. There came a point in March 2025 when the tenant seemingly decided that she needed to push the landlord into action, and she proceeded to serve him with 10 breach notices. The landlord then served the termination notice.
Thereafter, the tenant became increasingly demanding. Whilst she made legitimate claims that I have upheld, I have concluded that some of her claims were exaggerated or unreasonable and that some were unjustified. I also find that her behaviour towards the landlord was unreasonable at times, and it made it difficult for him to comply with her demands.
The tenant’s new build took longer than expected and the tenancy ended in September 2025 when the tenant moved into her new home.
The landlord accepts that the premises suffered from some defects which constitute breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). He has carried out some significant remedial work at substantial cost. The tenant says that the work was too little and too late. Rent
The landlord agreed to reduce the rent from $380 per week to $190 per week due to the work that needed to be done to the premises. The tenant says that the agreement was that the reduction would continue until all the necessary work was completed. The landlord says that it was to continue only as long as work was being undertaken, which he says was for three weeks. The tenant paid rent at $190 per week for 17 weeks and then paid no rent for seven weeks and two days until the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is therefore disputed.
I don’t accept the tenant’s argument that rent was reduced for as long as any remedial work remained uncompleted. The relevant email may not have made that clear, but her interpretation does not make sense. It would mean, for example, that if even a minor defect was not attended to, the reduction would remain in full.
Moreover, the tenant has a claim for compensation and if the rent reduction was for the consequences of the defects on the tenant, it would have to be deducted from any award that the Tribunal made in her favour. Otherwise, compensation would be duplicated. The rent reduction would therefore be meaningless. I find, therefore, that the rent reduction was for the inconvenience while substantial work was being carried out and that lasted for three weeks.
It follows that the landlord’s claim for rent arrears must be awarded in full. General Legal Principles
The law relating to specific claims is set out below. The tenant’s main claim is that the premises were defective is some respects and didn’t comply with the Act and the Healthy Homes Regulations.
Under section 45 of the Act, the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, comply with Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. This applies to any unlawful act.
Generally, the landlord must first be aware of the of the problem needing attention and that will often require notification of it from the tenant. Once the landlord is aware of the problem, they will have a reasonable time in which to remedy it before being in breach of the relevant obligation.
If the problem existed when the premises were provided to the tenant, the landlord will generally be in breach from that time or from the time that the requirement applied.
The requirement for premises to be insulated dates to July 2019. More recently, other Healthy Homes requirements have been introduced, and when they apply depends on the when the tenancy began or was renewed. In this case the more recent requirements applied from mid-January 2025. Tenancy Agreement
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing.
The tenant says that she did not receive a copy of the tenancy agreement. The parties signed the agreement at the premises and the tenant says that the landlord told her that only he keeps a copy of the agreement. The landlord denies that and says that he provided the tenant with a copy of the agreement.
The tenant is a mature woman who said that she has developed many properties in the past. Plainly she has business experience, and it is obvious that she is willing and able to assert her rights. I therefore find it difficult to accept that she would accept a landlord’s refusal to provide her with a copy of the agreement. I am therefore not prepared to find that she did not receive it. I note that the landlord provided Healthy Homes Information with the agreement but no statement of compliance. I regard that as a minor breach and note also that the parties did not expect the tenancy to last beyond the date that many of the HHS applied. Bond
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
The landlord lodged the bond late. He explained that the tenant completed the bond form in red and he tried to get her to complete it in black or blue as the Bond Centre requires, without success. He did eventually lodge it when he became aware that it would be accepted.
The tenant said that the landlord completed the bond form and that he only lodged the bond after she queried it.
The landlord is an experienced landlord, and he should have understood the importance of lodging the bond within time. It was his responsibility to do so or at the very least attempt to do so.
The bond has been lodged but in all the circumstances there should be an award of exemplary damages to reflect the importance of the requirement and given the landlord’s experience. An award in the sum of $300 is appropriate. Claims Relating to the Condition of the Premises
The tenant has raised a multitude of these claims. Garage Doors
There is a double garage separate from the house. It had two tilt doors and a rear door.
One of the tilt doors was permanently locked and the other tilt door could not be locked. This created problems for the tenant because she wanted to store some of her own belongings and her building materials securely in the garage.
The landlord was not able to make the garage doors lockable and they had to be replaced. That was completed near the end of the tenancy.
The tenant was entitled to have a garage that was usable and lockable. She was denied that, and I find that she is entitled to compensation for that. An award of exemplary damages is not warranted.
The tenant said that she had to store building materials in the large living room which meant that she did not have the use of that room. She also had some of her own belongings stored in the house because she could not store them in the garage.
I accept that the tenant suffered some inconvenience and loss of use of the premises. I note that she used one of the other living areas and so that mitigated the inconvenience in relation to the large living room.
I approach this on the basis that she had little use of the garage, and she should be compensated for that. I assess the loss at $30 per week which amounts to approximately $1,500 for the term of the tenancy. I award that. Landlord’s Belongings
The tenant complained about the landlord leaving belongings in the premises. The first written evidence of that was in early May. The belongings were items, such as a dresser, that were in the premises when the tenancy began. The tenant chose to put them in a bedroom and then complained that she could not use the bedroom. I see no justification for an award in relation to this. Dead Trees
There were three dead trees on the property and the tenant wanted them removed. The first written record of that came with one of her breach notices in March. She says that there was a danger of them falling and causing damage or injury.
The landlord had them removed on 23 July. They did not cause any damage or injury and there was no evidence that they affected the tenant’s use of the premises. I accept that if they were dangerous that the landlord had an obligation to remove them. The landlord was slow to do so but I see no justification for a monetary award. Glass Damage
There was some cracked glass in the premises from the beginning of the tenancy. Two panes of glass in outside windows had small cracks in them. I do not regard them as being in an unreasonable state of repair.
A sliding internal door between two of the living areas had a larger crack in it near the bottom of the door. It appears that the glass was displaced slightly resulting in a sharp edge. The tenant’s main concern was that when she had her grandchildren in the house, that there was a danger to them if they ran into the glass. I note that the door could be pulled open which would significantly reduce any danger and that even without a crack, glazed doors are a potential danger. It is unlikely that the glass was toughened.
The tenant was happy for the landlord to remove the door. The door was eventually reglazed. Arguably the landlord should have acted sooner, but I see no justification for a monetary award. Bath
There was some damage to the moulding surrounding the bath. The tenant said that she had cut herself on the sharp edge of the damaged area. The landlord sent someone to address the problem, and he applied some silicone to it to cover the sharp edge. The tenant said that the silicone came off. The contractor suggested that the tenant removed it by vigorous cleaning. I find that is a credible possibility. The landlord refused to take any further action. Replacing the moulding would have been expensive and put the bathroom out of action for a time.
I find that the landlord acted reasonably. He arranged what should have been an effective temporary repair. He suggested to the tenant that she could put some tape over the damaged area if she had concerns but she rejected that idea. I find that there has been no breach. Wardrobe Doors
The wardrobe doors in two of the bedrooms were faulty from the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant asked to remove them, and the landlord agreed. Then in March, when the tenant became more agitated about the condition of the premises, she asked for them to fixed and refitted.
The landlord had them assessed and they could not be fixed. He therefore arranged for new doors to be made and they fitted on.
I do not regard the loss of doors on the wardrobe to be a significant issue. The tenant was initially happy for them to be removed. The landlord replaced them when she changed her mind about that. I see no need for a monetary award. Carpet
The tenant claimed that the carpet in the house was not in a reasonable state of repair. The landlord disagreed and refused to replace it.
The photographs show the carpet to be well worn and threadbare in places, mainly at the perimeters of the carpet. There is one photograph that shows some slight rucking. Overall, I find that the carpet was not in an unreasonable state of repair. It may be nearing the end of its life, but it is not yet at the stage that it must be replaced.
I note that the tenant has claimed that landlords must replace carpet every 15 years. I don’t know where she got that notion from. It is false. I also reject the claim that there must be underlay. There is no need for carpet at all, and so plainly underlay is not a necessary requirement. Ceiling Tiles
The tenant complained about some displaced ceiling tiles, and they were put back in place on. This was a minor issue no order is required. Hole in Ceiling
There was a disused log burner in one of the living areas and there was a small hole in the ceiling above it and some staining on the ceiling suggesting historic leaking. The hole was repaired on. There is no good evidence that there was any leaking there during the tenancy. This was a minor issue and no order is required. Quiet Enjoyment
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person".
The tenant complained that the tenant and members of his family were continually passing through the property and disturbing her to gain access to sheds on the other side of the fence behind the house. The landlord accepts that he accessed the sheds, but says that it was not often, and it was always with the tenant’s permission.
The tenant accepts that she gave permission but says that the landlord took advantage and implicitly threatened her with eviction if she didn’t comply.
The best evidence in relation to this lies in the written communications between the parties at the time. They show that the landlord was being considerate about his use of the sheds and that the tenant had no concerns. I therefore reject the tenant’s claims in this respect. Healthy Homes Standards
There was insulation in the roof space, but it was not fully compliant. That was rectified late in the tenancy.
There was compliant insulation under the floor but there was no ground vapour barrier (GVB). The landlord said that he was told by a contractor that there was not enough space for it to be installed. The landlord should have known that if insulation was able to be installed in the space, so too could a GVB. It should have been installed by mid-January. It was installed at the end of March.
The landlord’s HH Report also noted that a downpipe needed to be connected to the drain. The tenant complained about water entering the premises around a window in a living area during a period of heavy rain and blamed faulty guttering for the event. The landlord said that it was an exceptionally heavy period of rain that had overwhelmed the drainage system. The landlord paid the tenant $40 compensation and provided a dehumidifier.
The landlord’s HH Report also found that the premises did not comply with the heating standard. There was a good wood burner and a heat pump in the premises, but neither was in the largest living area which is treated as the main living area. Another heat pump was installed in March in time for Winter.
These were failures to comply with the relevant HH Standards and the landlord should have ensured that the premises complied with them by mid-January. The landlord was not one to ignore his responsibilities. He was responsive to many of the tenant’s requests, and he has spent a considerable amount of money on the premises putting right deficiencies. Nevertheless, the HH deficiencies should not have been there in the first place or allowed to arise.
The tenant said that she was affected by the compliance failures in terms of having a cold and damp house to live in and excessive power bills. The evidence of her power bills does not support that. I also note that there were living areas, that the tenant largely used, that did have plenty of heating capacity.
Taking all things into consideration I find that there should be an award of exemplary damages for failure to comply with HH Standards. I find that an award of $1,500 is appropriate. No separate award of compensation is required because I have taken the effect on the tenant into consideration. Unlawful and Retaliatory Termination Notice
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00.
Section 60AA of the Act prohibits a landlord from giving a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00.
I have already found that the landlord’s termination notice was unlawful and retaliatory. That does not mean that I need to make two awards or that any award should be greater because there have been two unlawful acts. The landlord should not have served notice and that is why there must be an award of exemplary damages. Serving such a notice unlawfully strikes at the heart of a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises because it has the potential to cause the tenant to lose the tenancy without a lawful reason.
In this case the tenant is an experienced business-like woman who was well informed and well able to stand up for herself. She was not fazed by the notice and took appropriate steps to protect herself. Nevertheless, the landlord should not have served the notice, and it was a serious breach of the Act. An award that is a suitable punishment and a deterrent is required.
In all the circumstances I find that an award of $1,500 is appropriate. Hot Water Cylinder
This issue was raised at the hearing. The cylinder, which was intended for the tenant’s new home, was removed from the premises by people who entered illegally. Whether they were entitled to take it I can’t say, and it isn’t relevant. The tenant had complained about being unable to lock an exterior door and the landlord sent a contractor to fix it. The tenant directed him to a different door, and he installed a lock to that door. The cylinder was taken shortly after that.
If the tenant had not directed the contractor to the wrong door, the door that was used to enter the premises would have been lockable. The tenant cannot, therefore, be heard to complain that the landlord is responsible for the loss of the cylinder. There are other problems with the tenant’s claim, but I don’t need to consider them here. Other Issues
The tenant raised other issues. They were either trivial or did not amount to a breach of the landlord’s obligations. I do not intend to set them out individually in this decision. Filing Fee
Both sides have had some success and so I make no order as to the bond. Suppression
There is no reason to order name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5335321 — Rent arrears at 125 Settlement Road, Kurow, 9435

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5335321 — Rent arrears at 125 Settlement Road, Kurow, 9435

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.