What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341925 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 5341925?

Property Damage: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $742.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341925?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341925?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12919528-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341925 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 5341925?

Property Damage: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $742.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341925?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341925?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12919528-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

62 Hill Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5341925 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341925 — net $2,757.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$742.86		Rent arrears
Exemplary damages: Failing to maintain		$3,500.00	Failing to maintain
Total award	$742.86	$3,500.00
Net award		$2,757.14
Bond		$600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,757.14

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341925 — net $2,757.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$742.86		Rent arrears
Exemplary damages: Failing to maintain		$3,500.00	Failing to maintain
Total award	$742.86	$3,500.00
Net award		$2,757.14
Bond		$600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,757.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant name and identifying details.
Panther Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,757.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The tenant’s claim in respect of retaliatory notice is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant lodged an application on 10 June 2025 seeking compensation and exemplary damages for claims relating to breach of landlord obligations throughout the tenancy and retaliatory notice. Background
The premises consist of a free-standing house with 4 bedrooms and 1 bathroom. The tenancy is well-established, with the tenant having resided there with her 3 children since February 2000.
The rent was $520.00 per week.
The tenant vacated on 25 August 2025.
The house is approximately 100 years old. The landlord is represented in court today by a property manager (“the landlord”) who has managed the property since November 2024. The property manager says that the current owner used to live in the property prior to this tenant moving in.
Notwithstanding the character of the house it is fair to say that age is catching up with it. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must decides are these: a. Did the landlord breach their obligations by failing to maintain the premises during the tenancy? b. Was the notice to terminate dated 26 May 2025 retaliatory? c. Did the landlord commit any unlawful acts? If so, Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages? d. Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? Relevant law
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
A failure by a landlord to comply with these requirements is an unlawful act in each case – section 13A(1F) RTA and section 45(1A) RTA.
Section 54 RTA provides that it is unlawful for a landlord to issue a termination notice which is retaliatory.
Section 85 RTA sets out the manner in which this jurisdiction is exercised.
Section 109 RTA sets out what must be established before the Tribunal can award exemplary damages.
Schedule 1A RTA sets out the maximum amounts that can be awarded by way of exemplary damages. 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Other legal considerations
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 un-likely. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
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.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
A tenant’s compensation claim may be for an actual loss (for example, cleaning expenses) or for the loss of use of and therefore enjoyment of the tenancy (for example, due to flooding events, cleaning and maintenance carried out, and because the premises were not HHS compliant).
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: a. The nature of the breach; b. The duration of the breach; and c. The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
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. Those factors are: a. The intention of the person; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest. Discussion Landlord application
The landlord lodged their application on 8 September 2025. Their application included claims for rent and water arrears, a plumber’s invoice, wall repairs and rubbish removal.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that all claims other than rent arrears are now withdrawn. Because of this I shall address the landlord’s application first.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 25 August 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. During the hearing the tenant disputed the outstanding rent arrears stating that there should be nothing owing.
The landlord produced a rent ledger confirming the outstanding amount of $1782.73. When pressed by the Tribunal the landlord accepted that the amount as recorded in the rent ledger had not taken into account an earlier offer of two weeks free rent as compensation. The amended amount for outstanding rent is therefore $742.86. The tenant continued to dispute even the amended amount.
There is no evidence before me which indicates that the amended amount is incorrect. Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for amended rent arrears is allowed.
The claim for rent arrears is established. Tenant application
The tenant’s application raised a number of allegations in respect of her former tenancy. These included a request for work orders, failing to maintain and retaliatory notice.
The crux of the tenant’s application is centered on an alleged breach of landlord obligations relating to maintenance. The matter was also before me for a case conference on 12 September 2025 where the tenant confirmed the following claims: • Compensation for failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair – section 45 RTA • Work Orders • Retaliatory notice
The tenancy has now ended which makes the claim for work orders a moot application.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must • provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain the premises during her time living there.
The tenant says that the landlord failed to maintain the premises throughout the tenancy. She says that the failure to maintain was mainly to do with leaks. It also had uneven ground outside, amongst other things.
The floor of the house had rotten carpet which the tenant removed in 2000. The tenant says that the blinds were also rotten and were replaced by them in 2000. The windows would slam down and there were holes in the weather boards. The tenant says that there was no lino on the floor – just concrete and wood.
The tenant says that the garden back wall collapsed. The wall was crumbling for many years. The concrete outside the back door was always uneven.
The current property manager met the owner and tenant on site approximately 6 months ago to come up with a maintenance plan in respect of the roof and the garage door which the tenant installed several years ago. They also discussed the overgrown trees and the outdoor shed which had a hole in the floor.
They also obtained a quote to trim the trees and another quote to replace the roof. They arranged a builder to attend to assess the weather boards and other work on the property.
In her application the tenant reports the following issues: • Rotten weatherboards around the house exterior • Broken paving and ground not level • Collapsed retaining wall since 2012 • Damaged concrete stairs since 2012 • Collapsed floor in back shed • Hole in corner of garage roof since 2015 • Leaking roof in multiple areas of house
The tenant stated that she was unaware of the existence of a Healthy Homes assessment report undertaken in 2021.
The tenant claimed during the hearing that the Council are investigating the property but did not advance any further evidence confirming that this was being undertaken or what the outcome was.
The tenant says that from the time Mr Lockwood took over he has never attended the property other than a meeting in December 2024 where they discussed the issues. She did not hear back from him until April this year notwithstanding the issues with the roof.
Without any maintenance the ceiling collapsed on 17 April 2025. A roofing contractor attended to look at the roof the same month.
The tenant was expecting Kowhai roofing but a different contractor attended. She says that the contractor turned up to look at the issue of the leaking roof. She further states that there was no notice given that this contractor would turn up at 8am in the morning.
The landlord says that the tenant was notified on 3 April 2025 by text message advising that there would be a roof inspection on 4 April at 11am by Endevour Limited. They did not receive any contact from the tenant advising that the date and time was not suitable. The landlord then received an email from Endevour that the tenant had not allowed them on the property.
The tenant says that Cyclone Tam collapsed the ceiling. The tenant also says that she did not think that inspecting the roof at 8am with pouring rain was a good idea.
The tenant then said the owner came to assess the roof on 17 April and to see if insurance would cover the damage.
The landlord says that the owner agreed to give the tenant 2 weeks free rent.
The tenant says that she was never offered any free rent but instead held back one week’s rent as compensation. She then asked for a month’s free rent as compensation which was not accepted but then offered her two weeks free rent.
The tenant says that Cyclone Tam caused the lounge ceiling inside the house to collapse. The tenant says she brought this to the attention of the landlord the following day.
The landlord accepted that they were notified. The landlord says he called the roofing company to attend and assess.
The tenant says that she requested that the owner come out to assess the property. She says that the owner had concerns about the roof. The tenant says that the leak was not insignificant which at time required her to bail water out. The tenant provided photographic evidence in support of these issues.
The tenant says that she never served the landlord with any work orders to repair.
She also never moved as she thought that the roof would get repaired by Kowhai roofing. The tenant says that she put a lot of effort and expense into the property during her time living there.
The landlord says that the discussion he had with the previous property manager was that the tenant did not want any maintenance done on the property as she did not a rent increase. The landlord says there is lino flooring in the kitchen, bathroom and laundry with wooden flooring throughout the remainder of the house.
The landlord says that there was a picket fence at the front of the property which collapsed. When the picket fence collapsed it was replaced with a stone wall.
The landlord says that they responded to a request in respect of the roof and the uneven ground at the back of the property.
They contacted Endevour Property Services who repaired the leak and replaced and repaired the guttering.
Unfortunately, the leaks persisted and Endevour had to attend on several occasions to address the leaks.
The landlord advised during the hearing that a HHS assessment was undertaken by the previous property manager on 9 March 2021.
The issue raised was no extractor fan in the bathroom and no moisture barrier under the house. The landlord installed the extractor fan but did not go ahead and install the moisture barrier since the house needed some re-piling work done first. Analysis
The tenant provided significant documentation with her online application. Having carefully reviewed the material before it is obvious that the premises are at the stage where significant money needs to be spent to rejuvenate her. The property is old and requires re-piling and other work to bring it into line with Healthy Home Standards.
I have carefully considered the evidence filed by both parties. Based on my assessment of the material I find that the landlord did not fully comply with section 45 of the RTA. While some maintenance was carried out, parts of the property remained in a state of disrepair for an extended period, including serious roof leaks and some structural issues.
An inspection report and associated photographs dated 7 May 2025 highlighted the overall average condition of the property. There were earlier inspection reports dated 5 June 2024, 6 December 2023, 19 July 2022 and 24 June 2021 which recorded the ‘average’ condition of the property overall. Some areas of the house were recorded as being in poor condition. The inspection reports dated 28 May 2020 and 26 November 2020 again recorded the condition of the property as average.
I have also sighted an email from the previous property manager dated 15 July 2025 advising that the tenant would never move from the property. The email noted that the tenant was difficult and caused the need for major works by detouring attempts at regular repairs.
While I acknowledge the landlord’s difficulty in achieving maintenance at times this does not alleviate the landlord’s obligations under the RTA.
The tenant’s refusal of access on certain occasions mitigates the landlord’s liability but does not absolve it entirely.
I find that the landlord failed to maintain the premises as required under the RTA. I find that the decision not to maintain for such a long period of time was intentional.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Based on my findings I make a global award for exemplary damages of $3500.00 to be paid to the tenant.
The tenant’s claim for $100,000.00 is excessive and completely unsupported by the evidence filed with the application. Retaliatory Notice
On or about 26 May 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord served a 90 day notice to terminate on the tenant on or about 26 May 2025.
The landlord says that the owner decided to sell the property during the 90-day notice period. I have sighted an email from the owner dated 4 August 2025 stating that he is now considering putting the property on the market. The owner further acknowledged that the main value of the property is the land.
The tenant claims that the notice to terminate was retaliatory. The notice was served on the tenant on or about 26 May 2025. This was a 90 day ‘no reason’ notice. The tenant then vacated on 25 August 2025.
The landlord has now sold the house. The tenant says that the termination notice was retaliatory as the landlord did not want to spend the money on the house.
Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so taking into account the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. For completeness giving of a retaliatory notice does not have to be intentional to award exemplary damages for a breach. See section 109(3) and (3A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims that the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was retaliatory, on the basis that the landlord intends to sell the property due to the amount of maintenance required.
Section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a notice may be set aside if it is given in retaliation for the tenant exercising their rights under the Act.
However, the evidence in this case clearly establishes that the landlord’s decision to terminate the tenancy was motivated by a genuine intention to assess the property for major repair work or to sell the property. Ultimately the sale was pursued because of the level of maintenance required.
The District Court has confirmed that a landlord’s decision to sell a property, even if prompted by maintenance concerns, does not in itself amount to a retaliatory notice (see Carver v Kiesanowski NZDC 3939).
Accordingly, the tenant’s claim that the termination notice was retaliatory has not been established.
The tenant’s remaining requests for compensation were not recorded in her original application and are therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The tenant applied for a name suppression order. The tenant has had a degree of success with her application and therefore I allow her request for name suppression.
Both parties have had a degree of success with their application and therefore I make no order reimbursing their application filing fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341925 — Exemplary damages at 62 Hill Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341925 — Exemplary damages at 62 Hill Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions