What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341852 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 5341852?

Compensation: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341852?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341852?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12781762-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341852 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 5341852?

Compensation: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341852?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341852?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12781762-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

2 Clearwater Cove, West Harbour, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5341852 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341852 — net $1,228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$750.00	Failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide HHS statement	$250.00	Failure to provide HHS statement
General damages for fining tenant	$100.00	General damages for fining tenant
Compensation for power and water	$100.00	Compensation for power and water
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,228.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,228.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341852 — net $1,228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$750.00	Failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide HHS statement	$250.00	Failure to provide HHS statement
General damages for fining tenant	$100.00	General damages for fining tenant
Compensation for power and water	$100.00	Compensation for power and water
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,228.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,228.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
Coral Du must pay the remaining bond of $1,800.00 to the Bond Centre immediately.
Coral Du must pay [the tenant/s] $1,228.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenants against the landlord. The tenancy is ongoing, but various matters have arisen during the tenancy over time.

BACKGROUND

The parties entered into a tenancy agreement commencing on 30 May 2025, and being a fixed-term agreement ending on 30 December 2025.
At the hearing today, the tenants advised they do not wish to continue the tenancy after 30 December 2025. As I noted to the tenants at the hearing, if they wish for the tenancy to end, then they must give their landlord notice that the fixed-term tenancy will end on 30 December 2025.
However, over the course of the tenancy, various matters have arisen, and I will set out the background of those more fully below under the relevant claims.
A hearing was convened on 26 November 2025 in [Event location suppressed]. Both tenants were in attendance. Ms Du attended along with Ms Li, who presented the case for Ms Du. The Tribunal was also assisted by an interpreter, who interpreted the whole of the proceeding in Mandarin.

TENANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the tenants confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Unlawful entry b. Failure to lodge bond c. Failure to provide a Healthy Homes Standards report d. Failure to maintain e. Apply unreasonable penalties f. Harassment and verbal threats g. Refund of bond h. Utility reimbursement to compensate for the garage i. Compensation for cleaning and repairs.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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. Exemplary damages
The Tribunal must consider a claim for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person 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. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.

ANALYSIS

Claim 1 – Unlawful entry

The tenants say that the landlord entered the premises unlawfully, using the excuse of collecting letters, when there is no one at home, including to take a microwave oven. The landlord has taken photographs during these entries without consent. The tenants confirmed that on these occasions, the landlord would enter the door and come inside the house, and on no occasion did the landlord provide notice.
In response, the landlord states there was a ‘supplementary’ condition, on the tenancy agreement and refers to a message where she stated: Regarding the garages (the two on the ground floor of the house), they are used by the homeowner to store items. The homeowner is allowed to come back to retrieve things during the day, and do not disturb the tenant after 6 pm.
The landlord states that the tenants are lying.
I asked the tenants to provide dates and examples for the landlord to respond to, the tenants gave the following examples: a. 5 July, when the landlord came to the kitchen and took the microwave. b. 31 August, when the landlord went into the house at 7am and took photos.
The landlord responded as follows: a. The landlord confirmed that she did go into the premises on 5 July 2025 to collect the microwave, and that this was discussed and agreed with the tenants. The tenants said when they moved in that they had their own microwave, so it could be taken by the landlord at any time. On 28 June, the tenants asked when they would be coming to their home, and there was an oral agreement to take the microwave away, and if that occurred, the rental agreement needed to be amended. b. In relation to the 31 August entry, the landlord refers to messages around power failure to the upstairs rooms, and states that the meter box is located in the landlord’s private garage. The landlord refers to the messages about the power failure and a request from the tenant to “please come over as soon as possible”. The landlord found that there was a Chinese appliance in the kitchen that was not compliant with the New Zealand system, so took a photograph to include on a WeChat message to the tenants to say not to use the appliance because of fire risk.
In response, the tenants state that on 5 July, there was no oral agreement to take the microwave away. In relation to 31 July, while the tenant asked for the power to be fixed, they did not ask the landlord to enter the house. Analysis
Section 48 of the RTA relates to a landlord’s right of entry to the premises. Broadly, this provision provides three circumstances when a landlord can enter the premises: a. At any time in the case of an emergency (consent or notice is not needed); or b. When the landlord provides notice to the tenant as set out in section 48; or c. Following the consent of the tenant, freely given at or immediately before the entry.
Section 48 also confirms that it is an unlawful act for a landlord to enter the premises without the necessary authority, and it is also an unlawful act for a tenant to refuse the landlord entry unless they have a reasonable excuse.
At the hearing, the tenants provided two examples which they say show unlawful entry of the premises. 5 July 2025
In relation to the 5 July entry, the fact of the entry is not in dispute. The evidence is that the landlord went to the premises and took the microwave. However, the WeChat messages do support a conclusion that the landlord had advised they were intending to uplift the microwave, to which the tenant responded “OK”. I note that the messages show a casual set of communications between the parties, but I am not persuaded that they are supportive of the landlord not having consent to collect the microwave as they did. 31 August 2025
In relation to the entry on 31 August, I am satisfied that the landlord did have consent to enter the premises. The evidence, supported by the WeChat messages, is that there was a power failure, and the tenants asked the landlord to go to the premises to resolve the problem. That is what the landlord did. I am satisfied that the landlord had good reason to go into the premises for the purpose of getting the power working as the tenant requested. I am not sure how the landlord could reasonably have got the power working, without entering the premises for that.
In relation to the photograph, I consider that was taken for an associated and legitimate reason, relating to the power failure. As I understand matters, the landlord considered that the cooking pot was the cause of the power failure, and that it presented a significant electrical risk, as it was not a New Zealand approved appliance. The landlord took a photograph to put on the WeChat message to the tenants, which does seem a legitimate exercise to me.
As far as collecting letters and packages are concerned, the landlord has provided the WeChat messages, and they indicate that the tenant advised there were items to be collected, the landlord responded when they would get them, and the tenant then approved the landlord’s proposal. I do not see any evidence of unlawful entry in relation to those visits. Claim 2 – Failure to lodge bond
The tenants say that they paid the bond on 30 May 2025, being $2,700.00, and that after the payment was made, they did not receive any confirmation from the Government.
The landlord states that during May and June, the landlord needed to move house three times, and she forgot to lodge the bond. It was only when the letter was received regarding this claim, that the bond was lodged. When I raised with the landlord that our records show that only $900.00 of the bond was lodged, the landlord says that because of her financial situation, she could only afford to lodge $900.00. Analysis
The tenant claims exemplary damages on the basis that the landlord has breached section 19 of the RTA, for failing to lodge the bond with the Chief Executive.
Section 19 of the RTA sets out the “Duties of landlord on receipt of bond”, and confirms that the landlord: shall, within 23 working days after the payment is made, forward the amount received to the chief executive, together with a statement of particulars in the approved form signed by the landlord and the tenant.
For the purposes of this provision, the bond is considered to be lodged with the Chief Executive, by lodging the bond with the Bond Centre.
Section 19(2) of the RTA confirms that failure to lodge the bond following the section 19 requirements is declared to be an unlawful Act, and therefore could be the subject of an order of exemplary damages.
In this case, there is no dispute that the bond was not lodged within 23 working days. The landlord states that she missed lodging the bond given what was happening for her at the time.
I have determined that exemplary damages should be ordered. I am not persuaded that the failure to lodge the bond was not intentional on the part of the landlord. Bond money paid by tenants is the tenants’ money, a landlord does not have any right to hold that money for more than 23 working days. That is well known by landlords, as is the requirement to lodge the bond. Even if I were to have accepted that there was an oversight to lodge the bond, there was also the fact that even when the landlord became aware of the bond having not been lodged, she only lodged a small portion of it. The tenants paid $2,700.00 of bond, the landlord has only lodged $900.00 of that in the Bond Centre. That points to the bond money being used by the landlord for other purposes.
The effect for the tenant is that their bond payment has not been kept securely in the Bond Centre. There are very strong interests for tenants, landlords, and the public generally, for a strong and compliant bond system. That demands that landlords lodge the bond as the law requires it. I consider that it would be just to make an order of exemplary damages in this case.
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered is $1,500.00. In this case, I consider an order at 50% of the maximum would be indicated. If this were a situation where the landlord was simply late in lodging the bond, the order would’ve been closer to 1/3 of the maximum, but in this case, even after being notified that the bond had not been lodged, the landlord has still retained a significant portion of the bond, which justifies a higher order. Therefore, exemplary damages of $750.00 are ordered.
I also make an order that the remaining $1,800.00 of the tenant bond held by the landlord be immediately lodged with the Bond Centre. Claim 3 - Failure to provide a Healthy Homes Standards statement.
The tenant states that when they signed the tenancy agreement, they only received the tenancy agreement, not a copy of the HHS “report”.
The landlord considers that information about the HHS was provided in the tenancy agreement, and further, the tenants have not raised concerns about the property. Analysis
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provide for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
Section 13A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 sets out the requirements for tenancy agreements. Subsection (1CA) holds that: The landlord must also include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord,— (a) that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and (b) including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5).
Section 13A(1F) confirms that an unlawful act arises if a landlord fails to comply with section 13A(1CA).
The relevant regulations are the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. Regulation 33 sets out the information that must be provided in a tenancy agreement as being the information set out between regulations 34 to 39. I will not detail that here, but it requires very specific information about heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage.
What is notable about this case is that while the landlord has used the standard form tenancy agreement from MBIE (Tenancy Services), the landlord only used 7 pages of that agreement. The current version of the agreement is 26 pages long. If the landlord had completed all of the pages, she would have complied with the necessary legal requirements for a tenancy agreement.
But in this case, the landlord has not provided any of the necessary information as it relates to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping and moisture ingress and drainage. Because of that, the landlord has failed to comply with her obligations in relation to the HHS.
Finally, it is not a defence to this claim to say that the tenants did not raise issues regarding the HHS, before the landlord provided that information, or that the tenants have not pointed to a defect with the premises. This is a statutory obligation on the landlord; the landlord must provide this information with the tenancy agreement.
I consider the decisions made around what information would be provided and the tenancy agreement, or more particularly what pages would be completed, were intentional decisions on the part of the landlord. There are compelling reasons why tenants would want to be aware of the situation regarding their potential rental being a healthy home, and there is a strong interest for the public generally that tenants live in warm, dry, healthy dwellings. That is achieved by compliance with the HHS obligations. It would be just to make an order of exemplary damages.
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered for failing to comply with the requirement for a healthy home statement is $750.00. In this case, I consider an order at 1/3 of the maximum would be reasonable, and an order is made of $250.00 exemplary damages. Claim 4 - Failure to maintain
The tenants state that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises.
The tenants say that on 15 July 2025, there was a water leak in the bathroom that caused the carpets to become wet, and it took several hours for the tenant to clean up from the leak. The tenant considers that it should have been the landlord’s responsibility to clean the carpet, so she did that work herself. The tenant said seeks $200 compensation for needing to clean the carpet.
In response, the landlord refers to the claim from the tenants, which said that on 13 July 2025, they found a water leak on the second floor of the house, but that the landlord did not arrange timely repairs. The landlord points to the plumber’s invoice, which showed an attendance (if I have interpreted the invoice correctly), on 15 July 2025. In short it is the landlord’s position that they have properly maintained the premises as needed. The landlord also referred to messages with the tenants. In relation to the carpet cleaning the landlord states that there is an expectations on tenants to keep the premises clean. Analysis
The RTA requires that the landlord maintain the premises. The timeframes that maintenance or repairs are needed will depend on the issue and what is needed. In this case, there was a water leak, so there would be an expectation that the landlord would efficiently get on with the repair. In this case, the evidence does support that the landlord did contact a plumber efficiently. I find, therefore, that there is no failure to maintain the premises.
The tenants have cleaned for the carpet cleaning compensation. I will address that aspect of the claim below. Claim 5 – Applying unreasonable penalties
The tenant states that on 31 August, the landlord entered the premises without consent, and also claimed that they had misused the electrical appliances, causing the damage, that the landlord raised a fine of $30.00. The concern was over an electric pot being used in the kitchen.
The landlord states that the $30.00 penalty was only raised once, but not collected. The landlord states the power tripped from non-approved appliances. The $30.00 penalty was asked as a warning around using non- approved appliances. Analysis
There is no dispute between the parties that the landlord ‘fined’ the tenants $30.00 in relation to using a non-approved appliance, and the inherent risk with that. The landlord referred to this as being for a warning, but that the money was not in fact paid.
Landlords cannot raise these charges/penalties/fines against tenants. There is no provision in the RTA that allows a landlord to raise those charges, even the Tenancy Tribunal only has limited ability to raise penalties against tenants or landlords.
I can understand that receiving a “fine” from a landlord would be stressful, particularly in circumstances when there is no lawful authority to raise that fine in the first place. I consider this a matter from which general damages should be ordered. General damages are money that is ordered to be paid when there is a breach of an expectation that a contracting party will have mental satisfaction in the contract. There was a breach in this case, as far as the emotional effects that the fine would have had on the tenants. I consider that an order of $100.00 for general damages would be reasonable in the circumstances, particularly given that the tenants have not paid the fine. Claim 6 - Harassment and verbal threats
The tenants say that on 5 September 2025, without notice the landlord entered the garden at the house, and took some photographs from the balcony. The photographs were of the house, showing a dog on the balcony. The tenants consider this was taken as blackmail, claiming they had a dog, when in fact it was a friend’s dog, when the friends were visiting. The tenants had two audio recordings, that was played at the hearing. These were in Mandarin, and the interpreter assisted with interpreting these recordings. a. The first recording related to the dispute over the dog, with the landlord suggesting that if the tenant ended up in court, it may have an impact on any residency application if they were on the list of people with credibility issues. b. The second recording included the landlord requiring an apology, and again indicating that if the matter ended up in court she would go to the end of the process which would include the landlord evicting the tenants, and that the tenants would be added to the list of people with credibility issues..
In response, the landlord’s position is that tenants have not been honest, and that the dog was going to be staying for a few days. Analysis
The claim from the tenant is that the landlord has harassed the tenants.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” The Act further confirms that contravention of subsection 2 in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
Firstly, there is an issue around the landlord coming onto the property. The landlord does not need to obtain consent, or give notice to enter the land comprising the tenancy. Section 48 of the RTA relates to the landlord’s right of entry, with subsection one confirming that the landlord “shall not enter the premises” other than that with the consent of the tenant given at the time, or if the Act would otherwise allow it, such as following notice. But the problem for the tenants is subsection 7 which holds that “In this section premises does not include land or facilities”.
The effect of that subsection 7 provision, is to exclude any requirement for the landlord to obtain consent, or give notice, to enter land or facilities that otherwise comprise the premises.
I cannot see any privacy expectation in relation to the photograph. It simply showed the front of the house, with a dog on the balcony, which would be a view that any member of the public may well have had.
In my assessment, there was an honest dispute between the tenant and landlord around having a dog on the premises. There is nothing of itself wrong with that, parties are not required to see eye-to-eye with everything, It is not uncommon for landlords and tenants to disagree on some matters. I also accept that having a dog on the premises was a matter of importance for the landlord. As noted above, the dictionary definition of harassment looks to conduct that ‘serves no legitimate purpose’. I consider that the communication the landlord had with the tenant did have a legitimate purpose, which was to communicate her honest belief and position about the dog.
But the question is whether the landlord harassed the tenants in relation to that. My assessment is that what has occurred is not harassment. I have no reason to believe that what the landlord said to the tenants was anything other than her genuine view and opinion of things. While the landlord’s assessment of the law may have been wrong, that does not turn what was said, into harassment.
Finding as I do that the interactions do not comprise harassment, this claim must be dismissed. Claim 7 - Refund of bond
The tenant seeks to have her bond refunded at the end of the tenancy.
There is no dispute that the landlord has received $2,700.00. Analysis
As I explained at the hearing, there is no dispute over the bond being received by the landlord, which totals $2,700.00. At the end of the tenancy, the landlord must repay that bond to the tenant, unless the tenant agrees that the landlord should keep a portion of the bond, or the Tenancy Tribunal orders that the landlord can keep any portion.
As I have ordered above, the remaining portion of the bond that is not currently in the Bond Centre, must be lodged there immediately. Claim 8 - Utility reimbursement to compensate for the garage
The tenants seek compensation of 10% of the utilities they paid, which total $178.50, in relation to the utilities paid for the garage. The tenants state that the garage door is operated by power paid for by the tenants. The tenants say that the water leak arose in the garage.
The landlord states that the garage is only used for the storage of goods; it does not use water or gas. The landlord states that the landlord’s use of the garage was agreed before the tenancy commenced. The landlord states that the water leaks were in the tenant’s area (as confirmed from the tenants WeChat messages). Analysis
There are two aspects to this claim, that is power use in the garage, and water consumption from the leak.
The garage is not included as part of the tenancy, but I accept that it would be connected to the power supply funded by the tenants. I do accept that there would have been some power used in the garage, but just using a light and opening the door would use very limited power; it would be a fraction of what would be consumed in the house, but an argument could be made that the landlord should also contribute to the fixed charge also. It is fair that the landlord provide some level of compensation for the power, but I consider that an order of $50.00 would be a reasonable contribution given the limited period of the tenancy.
In terms of the water leak, the landlord must be responsible for the water lost from the leak. The tenant would have been charged for that water that leaked out. The obligation is on the landlord to provide working plumbing, and while the landlord cannot, of course, guarantee that there will be no leaks or problems with the plumbing, if a problem arises that causes a loss to the tenant, then the landlord needs to compensate for that loss. I cannot be certain how much water was lost in the leak; there is no evidence before me on that, but it is fair that some measure of compensation be provided. In the absence of better evidence, I fix that level of compensation at $50.00. Claim 9 - Compensation for cleaning and repairs
The tenants seek $200.00 for the cost of sorting out the carpets from the water leak.
The tenant further states that, given the difficulties with the landlord, she has obtained support from a psychologist. The tenant seeks the landlord to compensate for the cost of the psychologist, being $257.70
The landlord submits that responsibility for keeping the house clean and tidy is on the tenant. If particular work from the leak was needed, then the tenant could have spoken to the landlord about that.
In relation to the psychologist costs, the landlord states that over the course of the tenancy, there was a good relationship between the parties, and in fact the landlord would provide acupuncture services to the tenant. It was submitted that the landlord should not be liable for the treatment costs for the tenant; they are ordinary costs that the tenant should be responsible for. Analysis
There was a flood in the premises. There is no suggestion that the tenants caused this, based on the information from the plumber, it was a failure with the plumbing system. The obligation to maintain and repair the plumbing in the house is with the landlord. It must therefore follow that if the tenant has incurred any loss from a failure of the plumbing, then the landlord will be liable for that. The tenants were paying rent for a house that did not leak, and if they did not receive a non-leaking house, they should be compensated for this.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that they would have needed to undertake work to dry the carpet, the tenant should be compensated for her time doing this work. The claim is for the tenant’s time. The difficulty is working out what a fair amount of compensation would be, because the tenant has not kept detailed time records etc. The tenants have claimed $200.00 for this work, and that seems fair. That is about a day and a half of rental. If the landlord had instructed a commercial operator to do this work, it would have been much more expensive.
In relation to the compensation for the psychologist’s treatment, I cannot see any basis upon which to require the landlord to pay this cost. Certainly things have not gone well at the tenancy, but I have not seen evidence of behaviour or interactions with the landlord that are unlawful, which would have reasonably caused a person to develop psychological conditions. The claim for the psychologist treatment must be dismissed. Filing fee
The applicant has been partly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the tenants have applied for name suppression. The tenants have been substantially successful, so tenant name suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341852 — Exemplary damages at 2 Clearwater Cove, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341852 — Exemplary damages at 2 Clearwater Cove, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions