What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5355002 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 5355002?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5355002?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5355002?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13357149-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5355002 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 5355002?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5355002?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5355002?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13357149-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5355002 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5355002 — net $528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation (general damage	$500.00	Compensation (general damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$528.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5355002 — net $528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation (general damage	$500.00	Compensation (general damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$528.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [The tenant/s] and [The landlord/s]’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $528.00 immediately. See the table below

Reasons

Introduction

The hearing was conducted via videoconference on 24 March 2026.
[The tenant/s] attended the hearing via videoconference.
The landlord is represented by [The property manager/s], with assistance from [The landlord’s representative]. They attended the hearing via teleconference. [The property manager/s] was the main person addressing me. [The landlord’s representative] clarified compensation issues when needed.
[The tenant/s] seeks compensation on the basis that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, resulting in her bedroom becoming uninhabitable due to water ingress, dampness, and mould.
Having heard the evidence and submissions, I am satisfied that the real issue for determination is the adequacy of compensation, rather than whether there has been a breach of section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”).
Under section 45 of the Act, 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. Background and Findings of Fact
On 11 April 2025, [The tenant/s] discovered a wet patch in the carpet of her bedroom and lodged a maintenance request that same day.
The property manager responded promptly the following day and arranged for inspection. Initial investigation identified issues relating to the adjoining bathroom.
Subsequent investigation revealed more extensive defects, including water ingress and black mould within wall linings. A decision was made to undertake significant bathroom renovation works.
Bathroom works commenced on or about 19 May 2025 and were completed on 13 June 2025. These works involved multiple trades, removal of fixtures, and associated repair work.
[The tenant/s] vacated her bedroom on or about 17 April 2025 and resided at her partner’s home during the period of disruption.
Following completion of the bathroom works, [The tenant/s] did not return to her room due to ongoing concerns about dampness and the condition of the carpet.
On 15 July 2025, during a routine house inspection, a carpet specialist identified mould beneath the carpet and recommended replacement. The carpet was replaced on 17 July 2025.
[The tenant/s] returned to her room on or about 18 July 2025.
Accordingly, [The tenant/s] was unable to use her room for approximately 13 weeks, including approximately five weeks after completion of the bathroom renovation Issues for Determination
The issues for determination are: a. Whether the landlord breached section 45 of the Act by failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; b. If not, whether the Tribunal nevertheless has jurisdiction to award compensation; c. If so, what level of compensation is appropriate. Landlord’s Obligations (Section 45)
Section 45(1)(b) of the Act requires a landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises.
[The tenant/s] submits that the landlord failed to meet this obligation, particularly by delaying replacement of the carpet.
However, the evidence establishes that: a. the landlord responded promptly to the initial report; b. trades were engaged to investigate and diagnose the issue; c. significant remedial works were undertaken once the cause was identified; d. the process required coordination, access, and owner approval; and e. the presence of mould beneath the carpet was not known to the landlord or confirmed until 15 July 2025.
I accept the evidence of [The property manager/s] that prior to that date, trades had advised that the carpet and underlay were dry and suitable for use.
Once the mould was identified, the carpet was replaced within approximately two days.
I accept that the process required investigation, obtaining quotes, owner approval, and coordination of trades. I also accept that there were practical constraints, including access issues and reliance on third-party contractors.
In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to act reasonably or breached section 45(1)(b) of the Act.
While there was delay, I accept that the delay was attributable to the need for investigation, approval, and coordination of works, rather than inaction.
Accordingly, [The tenant/s] has not discharged the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to act or breached section 45(1)(b) of the Act. This claim is dismissed. Exemplary Damages
[The tenant/s] also sought exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages under the Act require proof of an unlawful act committed intentionally.
Given my finding that the landlord acted reasonably and did not breach section 45(1)(b), the threshold for exemplary damages is not met.
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.
I turn now to the compensation issue, which, as I indicated earlier, is the primary issue. Jurisdiction to Award Compensation
Section 77 of the Act empowers the Tribunal to make orders, including orders for compensation.
Compensation under section 77(2)(n) is commonly awarded where loss or damage arises from a breach of the Act.
However, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is not strictly limited to cases where a breach is established.
In particular, where a tenant has been deprived of the use or amenity of part of the premises, the Tribunal may award such sum by way of compensation as it considers appropriate to reflect that loss, even in the absence of fault on the part of the landlord.
In particular, where a tenant has been deprived of the use or amenity of part of the premises, the Tribunal may award such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach to reflect that loss, even in the absence of fault on the part of the landlord.
Such an award is not properly characterised as compensation for breach, but rather as compensation for loss of amenity and reduced enjoyment of the premises by way of general damages.
I therefore find that the Tribunal does have jurisdiction to award compensation by way of general damages in this case, notwithstanding the absence of a breach. Loss of Amenity
I find that [The tenant/s] was deprived of the use and enjoyment of her bedroom for a significant period. However, I emphasise that the deprivation was not intentional on the landlord’s part.
She vacated the room on or about 17 April 2025 and did not return until after the carpet was replaced on 17 July 2025.
During this period, she was required to reside at her partner’s home while her belongings remained in her room.
[The tenant/s] described the experience as involving “considerable emotional stress”, living “between two houses”, and having to return regularly to access personal belongings.
She also described the room as having an “unmistakeable smell of mildew”, and reported waking with “headaches, runny or blocked noses, sniffles, and coughs” when attempting to stay there.
I accept that, from [The tenant/s]’s perspective, the room was not reasonably habitable during this period.
I also accept that this resulted in a real loss of amenity, including inconvenience, discomfort, and disruption to her daily life. Compensation Already Provided
The landlord provided compensation in the form of rent reductions.
The evidence establishes that [The tenant/s] received compensation totalling approximately $1,304, reflecting rent relief during the period of disruption.
This compensation primarily addressed loss of use during the bathroom renovation period. Assessment of Appropriate Compensation
[The tenant/s] seeks total compensation of $2,160, being approximately 10 weeks’ rent.
The difference between the amount sought and the amount already provided is $856.
In assessing whether an additional sum by way of general damages is warranted, I have considered. a. the duration of loss of amenity; b. the extent of disruption; c. The compensation already provided, and d. the fact that the landlord acted reasonably and is not at fault.
I accept that the landlord has already provided a meaningful level of compensation.
However, I find that the compensation provided was primarily directed at rent abatement and does not fully reflect the broader impact on [The tenant/s], including her loss of amenity and the emotional impact of being unable to reside in her own space.
In particular, it does not adequately recognise: a. the stress of prolonged displacement; b. the inconvenience of living between two locations; c. the embarrassment and loss of independence associated with having to stay with her partner; and d. the period following completion of the bathroom works, during which the room remained unsuitable due to the carpet condition.
I place particular weight on the approximately five-week period between 13 June 2025 and 17 July 2025, during which the bathroom had been repaired but the bedroom remained affected.
In my view, it is appropriate to award an additional sum by way of general damages to reflect this loss of amenity and the associated emotional impact.
Doing the best I can to assess this on a reasonable basis, I consider that an additional amount of $500, being approximately two and a half weeks’ rent, is appropriate. Conclusion
The claim that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is not established.
However, [The tenant/s] experienced a significant loss of amenity during the tenancy.
The compensation already provided does not fully reflect that loss.
Accordingly, I award an additional amount of $500 as general damages for loss of amenity and the associated emotional impact. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim ， I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
I find that [The property manager/s] acted professionally. [The tenant/s] found herself in a situation she did not expect.
Both parties properly brought this matter before the Tribunal seeking a fair and just outcome.
Having considered all the circumstances, I am not satisfied that there is any public interest in publishing the names or identifying particulars of either party.
[The tenant/s]’s application for name suppression is granted under section 95A(1) of the Act.
I also grant name suppression to the landlord on my own initiative under section 95A(4) of the Act, as I am not satisfied that there is any public interest in publishing the landlord’s name or identifying particulars.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5355002 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5355002 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions