What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343831 about?

The tribunal order states: The owner of the premises’ name and identifying details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5343831?

Property Damage: $2,427.10 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Loss Of Rent: $945.00 awarded to landlord; Bins/Panel Heater/Light Shade/Mirror: $237.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Interior Repainting: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343831?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343831?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13423659-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343831 about?

The tribunal order states: The owner of the premises’ name and identifying details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5343831?

Property Damage: $2,427.10 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Loss Of Rent: $945.00 awarded to landlord; Bins/Panel Heater/Light Shade/Mirror: $237.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Interior Repainting: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343831?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343831?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13423659-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5343831 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343831 — net $2,404.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Bins/Panel heater/Light shade/Mirror	$237.00		Repairs: Bins/Panel heater/Light shade/Mirror
Repairs: Carpet replacement	$900.00		Repairs: Carpet replacement
Repairs: Interior repainting	$2,000.00		Repairs: Interior repainting
Repairs: Ceiling and floor repairs	$1,150.00		Repairs: Ceiling and floor repairs
Loss of rent	$945.00		Loss of rent
Compensation: Cost of work order repairs		$2,427.10	Cost of work order repairs
Compensation: Loss of amenity		$400.00	Loss of amenity
Total award	$5,232.00	$2,827.10
Net award	$2,404.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,404.90

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343831 — net $2,404.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Bins/Panel heater/Light shade/Mirror	$237.00		Repairs: Bins/Panel heater/Light shade/Mirror
Repairs: Carpet replacement	$900.00		Repairs: Carpet replacement
Repairs: Interior repainting	$2,000.00		Repairs: Interior repainting
Repairs: Ceiling and floor repairs	$1,150.00		Repairs: Ceiling and floor repairs
Loss of rent	$945.00		Loss of rent
Compensation: Cost of work order repairs		$2,427.10	Cost of work order repairs
Compensation: Loss of amenity		$400.00	Loss of amenity
Total award	$5,232.00	$2,827.10
Net award	$2,404.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,404.90

Order

The owner of the premises’ name and identifying details are suppressed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $0.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Good Neighbours Real Estate Limited and $1,055.10 to Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

In October 2022, Good Neighbours Real Estate Limited (the Landlord) rented the premises to Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited With the agreement of Landlord, KTK then sublet the premises to a third party (the sub-tenant).
Things have not gone well. This is the third case the Tribunal has heard relating to these parties and this tenancy. In March 2025, the Tribunal ordered KTK to perform work at the premises, required to be completed by 17 May 2025. The Landlord had also applied to terminate the tenancy it had with KTK, on the grounds that the premises had been damaged and illegal drugs were being used at the premises. That Landlord claim was dismissed.
KTK did not perform all the work ordered by the Tribunal, so the sub-tenant brought further proceedings. In May 2025, KTK was ordered to pay the sub- tenant $3,312.07 for compensation for loss of amenity, exemplary damages of $1,800 for failing to maintain the premises and $1,500 for breach of the work order. The tenancy then ended in August 2025. The claims
The Landlord has now filed a claim against KTK seeking compensation of $16,497.25 for damage to the premises during the tenancy, including damage caused by water leaking into the premises, and lost rent. The Landlord also seeks general damages of $5,000.
KTK has cross-claimed. It says that it has now performed the work ordered by the Tribunal in March 2025, so it seeks compensation for the cost of that work. KTK also seeks orders that the Landlord should compensate it for the compensation and exemplary damages it paid to the sub-tenant as ordered by the Tribunal. The issues
In determining the competing claims, I must make the following mixture of factual and legal findings relating to the parties’ respective claims: (a) What caused the water leaks into the premises? (b) When did the Landlord know about the water leaks that were causing damage to the premises? (c) Is KTK liable to the Landlord for the actions of its tenant? (d) Is the Landlord entitled to compensation for damage to the premises? (e) Is the Landlord entitled to general damages? (f)Is the Landlord liable for the cost of repairs resulting from the work orders? (g) Is the Landlord liable for the compensation paid to the sub-tenant? (h) Should the Landlord pay exemplary damages?

What caused the water leaks into the premises?

The evidence shows that water leaked into the premises in two places – through the ceiling in bedroom four and through the window in the master bedroom. The evidence also shows that the water leaks caused extensive damage to those rooms.
The Landlord says that KTK should be liable for the damage caused by the water leaks. The Landlord says that the water leaks were caused by the sub-tenant (or her children) blocking the drainpipes and gutters with toys and debris. It relies on the advice of Star Maintenance.
In an invoice dated 1 September 2025, Star Maintenance advises: Please note the water damage was inspected by me and found to be caused by blockages all around the spouting this prevented the water from being able to escape and hence put stress on the small deteriorating parts of the spouting. I am 100% sure that the leakages would not have happened if the spouting and down pipes were not blocked and tested the gutters after removal as well as inspection after heavy rain that we had. No water ingress was present.
KTK says the leaks were caused by the deterioration of the roof and gutters and that the Landlord should be liable. It relies on a report from July 2025, prepared by Restore Pro.
Regarding the water leak into bedroom four, the Restore Pro report states: (a)The leak into bedroom four was caused by a major roof leak, which allowed water to enter the bedroom and run along the internal perimeter of the room. (b)The gutter was blocked with dirt and debris, contributing to overflow during rainfall. (c)There were two visible patch repairs on the roof suggesting prior repair efforts that had failed. (d)Water has penetrated through the ceiling and was actively leaking into the interior. (e)The damaged roofing material should be removed and replaced.
Regarding the master bedroom (which Restore Pro called bedroom 3), the report states: (a)The window latch was not closing properly, compromising the window’s ability to seal correctly. (b)There was no window flashing installed, which would have helped to direct water away from the window. (c)The gutter located directly above the window was rusted and had large holes along the side and cracked underneath. That damage caused rainwater to run directly down the exterior wall and pool around the window. (d)The combination of the faulty latch, absence of flashing and damaged guttering has led to significant water ingress into the room. (e)The damaged gutter should be removed and replaced, window flashings and new window latches should be installed.
The Restore Pro report also contains photographs that show the deteriorated sections of the roof and the holes in the gutters.
I have weighed the evidence provided by both parties and conclude that it is most likely that water entered the premises due to the poor condition of the roof and the gutters and the absence of window flashings and faulty window latch in the master bedroom. Any blockage caused by items thrown onto the roof by the sub- tenant or her children may have been a minor contributing factor, but the primary cause was the poor condition of the roof and gutter.
In reaching this view, I am particularly persuaded by the Restore Pro report. It was the most thorough evidence provided, and the opinions and conclusions expressed were supported by photographs, including photographs that showed the gutters were in poor condition and the roof had deteriorated. When did the Landlord know about the water leaks that they were causing damage?
KTK knew of the water leaks by 30 November 2023. On that day, the sub-tenant sent a letter to KTK advising it that water was leaking into two of the bedrooms during heavy rain.
KTK did not advise the Landlord or otherwise act promptly. After some delay, KTK then attempted limited repairs. In July 2024, it engaged I-Plumbing to inspect the roof to find the cause of any leak. An invoice dated 12 July 2024 records that I-Plumbing found and repaired a hole in the flashing. That repair appears to relate to the leak into bedroom four. There is no evidence that I-Plumbing assessed the cause of any water ingress into the master bedroom.
In July 2024, the Landlord applied to the Tribunal to terminate KTK’s tenancy. The Landlord alleged that the premises were damaged, and the sub-tenant had consumed illegal drugs on the premises. There was no mention of any water ingress in that application.
In August 2024, the sub-tenant then filed a claim against KTK in the Tribunal. As part of her claim, the sub-tenant alleged that KTK had failed to maintain the premises due to water leaks into bedroom four and the master bedroom. It is not clear when the Landlord was advised on this claim.
Water continued to leak into the premises. KTK has provided two videos sent to it by the sub-tenant in September and October 2024. Those videos show water leaking through the ceiling in bedroom four. There is no evidence to show that those videos were provided to the Landlord at that time.
But the Landlord did become aware of the leak into bedroom 4 in November 2024. Quite how it found out is unclear, but the evidence shows that it knew that water was leaking through the ceiling in bedroom four by that time. The Landlord did not know of the leak through the window into the master bedroom.
The Landlord then engaged Total Roof to assess the leak into bedroom four. The Landlord has provided a copy of an invoice from Total Roof and photographs of what it found. Those photographs show a small hole in the ceiling in bedroom four, caused by water ingress.
The Total Roof invoice also records that Total Roof then inspected the roof above the leak area. This appears to be the same area repaired by I-Plumbing in July 2024, although neither the Landlord nor Total Roof appears to have known about that earlier repair. Total Roof lifted the roofing tiles and found “rust holes in the drip edge flashing”. It sealed those areas and advised that the tenant should continue to monitor. The water leaks continued. Water continued to leak through the ceiling in bedroom four and through the window in the master bedroom.
I find that the Landlord first learned of a water leak in bedroom four in November 2024. It promptly attempted repairs. It did not know that those repairs had been unsuccessful, and that water was still leaking into bedroom four until about March 2025, when the Tribunal found that water was continuing to leak into that bedroom. By that stage, the Landlord also knew that water was leaking into the master bedroom. By 13 March 2025, when the Tribunal ordered KTK to remedy the leaks, the Landlord also knew of water leaking into the premises in two places.
There is no evidence that KTK then asked the Landlord to perform the repairs ordered by the Tribunal in March 2025. It seems there were conversations between KTK and the Landlord, but I received no evidence to demonstrate that KTK ever asked the Landlord to do the repairs. Neither does the evidence show that the Landlord proactively monitored the repairs or made reasonable efforts to perform them.
In many ways, the Landlord seems to have abdicated responsibility for the repairs required and assumed that the work would be done by KTK. The Tribunal’s decision of 13 March 2025 is clear that there is water leaking into the premises in two places. Irrespective of the fact that the Tribunal ordered KTK to perform the repairs (which the Tribunal had to do, as it could not make orders against the Landlord because there was no claim against it), the Landlord ought have known of the water leaks at that time. Under the Residential Tenancies Act, because it had knowledge of the need to repair, it should have acted.
The Landlord says that it tried to access the property, but the tenant would not let it. If that was the case, the Landlord should have arranged access through KTK. There is no evidence that it attempted to do so. The steps it took to comply with its obligation to KTK to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair were insufficient.

Is KTK liable to the Landlord for the actions of its tenant?

KTK entered into a residential tenancy agreement with the Landlord on 15 October 2022. Under that agreement, KTK is liable for any breach of the agreement or breach of its obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act.
KTK then sublet the premises with the Landlord’s consent. That sublease does not negate KTK’s liability to the Landlord. The sub-tenant was liable to KTK for any breach of the tenancy agreement or Residential Tenancies Act obligations.
The sub-tenant had no liability to the Landlord because there was no contractual relationship between the tenant and the Landlord. KTK did have a contractual relationship with the Landlord – the tenancy agreement. Under that agreement, KTK was liable to the Landlord for any breach of the Residential Tenancies Act or of the tenancy agreement between the Landlord and KTK.
KTK is therefore liable to the Landlord for the sub-tenant’s conduct as far as that conduct constitutes a breach of the contract between the Landlord and KTK.

Is the Landlord entitled to compensation for damage to the premises?

The Landlord claims compensation from KTK for damage caused by the sub- tenant. There is a general principle that KTK (as the Landlord’s tenant) should have no liability or obligation to meet the cost of any damage to the premises. 1
However, a tenant can be liable where: (a)the landlord proves that the damage was caused during the tenancy and was not fair wear and tear; and (b)the tenant does not prove that the damage was not caused by any careless or intentional act or omission. 2
Fair wear and tear is deterioration due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. 3 The alleged damage and losses
The Landlord says that, at the end of the tenancy, items were missing, and the premises were extensively damaged. The Landlord seeks compensation for the following: (a)Bins in Drawer Missing - $202.00 (b)Panel Heaters x 2 - $198.00 (c)Lounge light pendent and light - $110.25 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 49A 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 49B 3 Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403 (d)Shower Slider for main bathroom - $49.00 (e)Bathroom mirror damage - $55.00 (f)Shower head for main bathroom - $89.00 (g)Bathroom mirror replacement - $69.00 (h)Carpet Replacement - $2400.00 (i)Full Interior Repaint - $5520.00 (j)Ceiling, Floor & Gutter Repairs - $4025.00 (k)Loss of rent - $3780.00 The agreed compensation and withdrawn claim
KTK acknowledges that it has responsibility for some of the damage. However, it says that the Landlord should not be entitled to the full amount replacement value or repair cost it seeks, as any award made by the Tribunal must consider depreciation and ensure that the Landlord does not obtain any unfair betterment.
I advised the parties during the hearing that any order the Tribunal makes for the replacement of items must consider depreciation and betterment. The parties then agreed that I could order KTK to pay $237.00 in agreed compensation for the following: (a)Missing rubbish bins - $100 (b)One missing panel heater - $49.50 (c)Missing light shade in lounge - $60 (d)One missing bathroom mirror - $27.50.
In ordering these amounts I note that they are within the range of the amounts I would have ordered if the parties had not agreed. The Landlord also abandoned its claim for compensation for the second bathroom mirror. It seems that mirror was undamaged at the end of the tenancy. The shower slider and shower head
The Landlord says that KTK replaced the shower head and hose, with a head and hose that did not match the shower slider. The Landlord seeks the cost of replacing those items with matching components.
I decline that application. Although the components were no longer a precise match, they worked and were not so aesthetically displeasing as to amount to damage or any other breach of KTK’s obligations. Carpet replacement
The premises are carpeted in all four bedrooms. The photographs from the start of the tenancy do show that the carpets were generally clean, but certainly not perfect. There is a blue stain on the carpet in one bedroom, and a burn mark on the carpet in another, consistent with a hot iron being left on the carpet.
The photographs from the end of the tenancy show that the carpet was significantly damaged. The carpet in bedroom four and master bedroom was damaged by water ingress. In the other two bedrooms, the carpet was stained and dirty. The carpet therefore required replacement to bring the premises back to a reasonable condition. The Landlord has spent $2,400 doing so.
The carpet was near new in October 2022, although slightly damaged. It would have depreciated further in value since, and I must take that depreciation into account when determining how much the Landlord may recover.
The Inland Revenue Department publishes a depreciation rate guide (IR 265). That guide states that the carpet in a residential rental property tenancy has an estimated useful life of 8 years, with a “straight line” depreciation rate of 17.5 per cent a year.
Applying that guidance, and on the basis that there has been a like for like replacement of the carpet, I calculate the depreciated value of the carpet and the time it was replaced to be about $1,200. That is the maximum possible amount that I can award to the Landlord. I order that KTK must pay $900.
That amount reflects that the damage in two of the bedrooms (stains, burn marks etc) was caused by the acts of the sub-tenant. That damage was carelessly caused. The sub-tenant did not exercise appropriate care with respect to the carpet. KTK is therefore wholly liable for the reasonable cost of remedying that damage, up to the amount of the Landlord’s insurance excess of $2,000.
The water damage in the other two bedrooms was caused by the water leaks, which were due to the deteriorating roof and guttering, faulty window latch and absence of window flashings.
The parties should share liability for that water damage. KTK had an obligation to notify the Landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises or the need for any repairs. 4 It breached that obligation. As explained above, KTK failed to notify the Landlord of the water leaks in a timely way and that inaction is likely to have contributed to at least some of the damage.
But the Landlord must also take responsibility. By 13 March 2025, the Landlord knew that there were significant water leaks into the premises but then failed to take any prompt action to remedy those leaks, as it was required to do under the Residential Tenancies Act. 5 If the Landlord had taken quick action, much of the damage may have been avoided. It cannot simply pass responsibility for those repairs onto KTK. As the landlord under its arrangement with KTK, that obligation 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(d). 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1)(b). rested with the Landlord. It is therefore appropriate that the parties share responsibility for the damage caused by the water ingress. The full interior repaint
The Landlord spent $5,520 repainting all painted surfaces within the premises (other than the bathrooms) at the end of the tenancy. It seeks to recover that whole amount from the KTK.
The Landlord has provided photographs of the premises at the end of the tenancy. Those photographs show that, in certain places, walls and doors were marked and damaged and required replacement. Those photographs also show that, in other areas, the repairs and repainting performed by KTK’s contractors were substandard, including where the paint was poorly matched, and plastering was substandard.
The Landlord’s evidence shows that the following areas required repainting: (a)One wall in the hallway due to scribble marks. (b)One wall in the lounge due to scribble marks. (c)Two walls in the first bedroom on the right due to poorly matched paint. (d)The door to the first bedroom on the right to due a large number of small holes, caused by darts. (e)One wall in the bedroom with an ensuite due to poorly matched paint. (f)Three walls in the master bedroom due to poorly matched paint and poor repairs. (g)The door in the master bedroom due to a smiley face drawn on the door. (h)All surfaces required repainting in bedroom four.
The evidence does not show that the other painted surfaces throughout the house required repainting.
The calculation of how much of this invoice KTK should pay is not straightforward. I must consider issues such as depreciation and betterment, the fact that only parts of the house required repainting and, as set out about, that the parties ought to share liability for the water damage in bedroom four and the master bedroom.
Weighing all of those factors, I consider that KTK is liable for $2,000 of the cost of repainting the interior of the premises. That amount reflects its contribution towards the damage. That amount is also the Landlord’s insurance excess, which is the maximum amount it can recover for damage that is carelessly caused. Ceiling and floor repairs in bedroom four
The Landlord paid $2,300 to Star Maintenance to replace the ceiling and repair the floor in bedroom four due to water damage. I am satisfied that those repairs were required and that the cost is reasonable.
For the same reasons set out above, I find that both parties, through their inaction, have breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act and have contributed to this damage, so they should equally share this cost. I therefore order KTK to pay $1,150 for the repairs required in bedroom four. Replacing the guttering
The Landlord paid $1,725 to Star Maintenance to replace the guttering and downpipes. It says that the guttering and downpipes required replacement due to damage caused to them when they became blocked with the items thrown on the roof by the tenant or her children.
I have seen photographs of the guttering and downpipes before they were replaced. Those photographs show that the guttering and downpipes were old and deteriorating. They required replacement as a matter of maintenance. That is not a cost that KTK ought to be liable for. Lost rent
The Landlord also seeks to recover $3,780 for lost rent while the premises were being repaired after the tenancy. I accept that the Landlord was unable to rent the premises while it was being repaired. But I am not satisfied that it is entitled to recover the whole amount claimed.
Many of the repairs at the end of the tenancy related to the maintenance of the premises, including the repairs arising from the water ingress. Those were the Landlord’s obligation, so it cannot claim all the lost rent for the time it took to complete those repairs, even if it also performed other repairs at that time that related to the damage caused by the sub-tenant or KTK’s substandard efforts to repair that damage.
However, as set out above, the parties must share responsibility for the damage that occurred to these premises due to water ingress. KTK’s tenant caused much of the damage and KTK failed in its obligation to promptly notify the Landlord of the water leaks into the premises. KTK has therefore contributed to the Landlord’s loss of rent, and I order that it pay $945, one week’s rent, to compensate the Landlord for this loss.

Is the Landlord entitled to general damages?

The Landlord seeks $5,000 for the stress and emotional harm caused by these events. The Landlord feels that KTK failed to fulfil its promise to the Landlord. The Landlord was prepared to take a chance by allowing the premises to be sub-let to a tenant who was in need. The Landlord feels let down.
General damages are intended to compensate for non-financial loss, such as distress, inconvenience, or loss of enjoyment resulting from a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act.
I heard evidence from the owner of the premises. I have no doubt that these events have been stressful for him. But I am not satisfied that this is an appropriate case for general damages.
Many of the issues complained of by the Landlord were not connected to this claim. The owner had other issues with the sub-tenant that caused stress in his life, but I cannot take account of those in making this decision. I can only look at the claim before me.
Further, the Landlord (and by that, I mean the owner of the premises and the property manager) also materially contributed to at least some of the problems that arise in this case. For example, much of the damage to these premises was caused by the water leaks, which the Landlord did not take reasonable steps to promptly remedy.
I therefore decline to award general damages.

Is the Landlord liable for the cost of repairs resulting from the work orders?

On 12 March 2025, the Tribunal ordered KTK to: (a)Replace the toilet. (b)Repair the leaking outside tap. (c)Inspect the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans and remediate them if required. (d)Repair the front gate to a reasonable, professional standard of repair. (e)Engage a specialist roofing contractor to investigate any leaks to the study/small rear bedroom’s roof and onto the master bedroom’s window frame and remediate any leaks. (f)Engage a qualified electrician to inspect electrical issues at the premises in respect to the master bedroom’s lights and the lounge’s lights and remediate any issues to a reasonable standard of repair.
The work orders were rightly made against KTK. It was the landlord under the tenancy agreement with the sub-tenant. The Landlord has no direct liability to that tenant.
KTK now seeks to recover the following costs relating to that work: (a)$1,946.97 – relating to repairs of the electrical and outdoor tap issues and assessment of the toilet issue. $480.13 – for the repairs required to remedy the toilet issue.
KTK also sought to recover $417.50, but that cost appears to relate to invoice number 4886, which is the same invoice as the $480.13 charge. $417.50 is the GST exclusive amount of that invoice.
KTK is entitled to recover the $1,946.97 it paid to Restore Pro to remedy the electrical and outdoor tap problems and investigate the toilet leak and the $480.13 it paid to I-Plumbing to then replaced the toilet flush valve to remedy the toilet leak.
Although the Tribunal ordered that KTK had to perform that work, it only did so because KTK was the landlord under the tenancy agreement with the sub-tenant. The Landlord still had an obligation, under the tenancy agreement with KTK, to perform that maintenance work. Those were all maintenance issues that the Landlord ought to have taken responsibility for, and I am satisfied that the cost incurred by KTK was reasonable. Is the Landlord liable for the compensation paid to the sub-tenant
On 2 August 2025, the Tribunal ordered KTK to pay $3,312.07 in compensation for loss of amenity due to the water leaks and other maintenance issues. It seems the Tribunal calculated that compensation as 25 per cent of the rent paid by the sub-tenant from 30 November 2023, when she first reported the issues, and 2 August 2025.
The Landlord cannot be liable for any of this compensation before 13 March 2025. There is no evidence to show that the Landlord knew that the water leaks were ongoing, or of any of the other maintenance issues, before that date. From 13 March 2025 onwards, the Landlord did have an obligation to remedy the issues identified by the Tribunal. It has an obligation under the Residential Tenancies Act to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and, by that date, knew about the maintenance issues.
But as also set out above, the Landlord and KTK ought to share liability, as both breached their respective obligations. I therefore find that the Landlord should contribute $400 towards the loss of amenity compensation ordered against KTK for the period from 13 March 2025.

Should the Landlord pay exemplary damages?

KTK seeks exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are intended to punish and are only available for unlawful acts that are committed intentionally. 6
I cannot simply transfer the exemplary damages awarded against KTK to the Landlord. The Tribunal imposed those exemplary damages on KTK because it had not maintained the premises and it then failed to comply with the Tribunal’s work orders. That liability cannot be transferred.
However, I can consider whether the Landlord ought separately to be liable for exemplary damages. If it has intentionally committed an unlawful act - in this case, a failure to maintain - then exemplary damages may be appropriate. 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 109(3).
But I do not think that is an appropriate case to award exemplary damages against the Landlord for any failure to maintain the premises. The Landlord did not know of most of the maintenance issues until March 2025. It knew that there had been a water leak into bedroom four but had attempted repairs. It did not know of the ongoing leaks or the other maintenance issues because KTK had not told it. The Landlord was also unaware of any of the other maintenance issues before March 2025.
The Tribunal then ordered that KTK must remedy those issues. The Landlord did have an obligation under the Residential Tenancies Act to perform the maintenance, but I am not satisfied that its failure to do so was then deliberate. It seems to have assumed that KTK, as the landlord under the sub-lease, was taking care of those issues. I therefore find that the unlawful act of failing to maintain the premises was not committed intentionally and I decline to award exemplary damages. Name suppression and filing fees
Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful, so neither is entitled to recover the filing fee. I also decline to order name suppression for the property management company or KTK, as neither was wholly or substantially successful. However, I do order name suppression for the owner of the premises. I heard evidence from him. This tenancy has had a significant detrimental impact on him, which would be worsened by publication of his name. It is in the public interest that I order suppression of his name and all identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343831 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343831 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What caused the water leaks into the premises?

Is KTK liable to the Landlord for the actions of its tenant?

Is the Landlord entitled to compensation for damage to the premises?

Is the Landlord entitled to general damages?

Is the Landlord liable for the cost of repairs resulting from the work orders?

Should the Landlord pay exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What caused the water leaks into the premises?

Is KTK liable to the Landlord for the actions of its tenant?

Is the Landlord entitled to compensation for damage to the premises?

Is the Landlord entitled to general damages?

Is the Landlord liable for the cost of repairs resulting from the work orders?

Should the Landlord pay exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions