What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5362742 about?

The tribunal order states: The application by the Tenant is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5362742?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5362742?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5362742?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12925520-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5362742 about?

The tribunal order states: The application by the Tenant is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5362742?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5362742?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5362742?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12925520-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11C Hill Crescent, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5362742 — Leaks

Order

The application by the Tenant is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tenant has applied for exemplary damages. At the hearing, the Tenant withdrew their claim for work orders as the tenancy had ended.
The tenancy period was from 15 August 2025 to 22 October 2025.
The onus is on the Applicant, in this case the Tenant, to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities. This requires the Tenant to provide sufficient evidence to establish that their claim is more likely than not to be correct. Exemplary damages
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to provide a compliant gas area and failing to repair the stove.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Gas bottle area
The Tenant claims the Landlord failed to provide a compliant gas bottle area for approximately two months after the commencement of the tenancy. Upon moving in, the Tenant arranged for gas bottles to be installed and was advised by two gas suppliers that the installation area was non-compliant. On 20 August 2025, the Tenant was advised by the initial gas company, ‘Genesis Energy’ that the bottles required concrete pavers. On 2 September 2025, a second gas company, namely ‘Rock gas’ advised that the window was too close to the cylinders. On 4 September 2025, ‘Rock gas’ advised the Landlord how to erect plywood to resolve the compliance issue. On or about 13 September 2025, the Landlord installed plywood. When this was repaired ‘Rock gas’ advised there was a power point location issue. On 7 October 2025, the Landlord installed a new power point for the gas.
On 9 October 2025, the Tenant serve the Landlord with a 14-day remedy notice to repair the gas issue. By 30 October 2025, Rock gas confirmed the area was compliant. Email and text message correspondence was provided confirming these issues.
While the issue was being addressed, the Tenant was advised by the Landlord to use a 9kg gas bottle. This bottle was placed on top of a wheelie rubbish bin to enable connection. The Tenant paid for the initial gas bottle, after which the Landlord also provided one.
The Tenant gave evidence that the gas bottle issue caused her safety concerns, including fears of a gas leak or carbon monoxide exposure. She stated that the placement of the bottle prevented her three-year-old child from safely playing outside and that her child’s asthma required a warm environment. The Tenant submitted that the issue should have been resolved within one to two weeks and that the delay caused substantial inconvenience, including the need to shower at a friend’s home, increased food costs, and stress and anxiety. A medical certificate for the Tenants daughter was provided to confirm her history of asthma. It emphasised the importance of a safe dry and warm environment, stated it was not a suitable tenancy and caused the Tenant distress.
The Tenant acknowledged that the Landlord did take steps to resolve the issue but considered that it could have been resolved more quickly and that communication was delayed at times. She accepted that some delay to the issue may have been attributable to the gas company. There were also communication issues with the Landlord due to the differing levels of technological proficiency. She would email the Landlord and he would take sometime to reply or was unable to find the email immediately. The Tenant provided a link for the Tribunal which was labelled “Gas legislation” and LPG requirements for installation.
The Landlord submitted that he responded promptly throughout his dealings with the Tenant regarding the gas compliance issue. He stated that the previous tenants at the property had not experienced any difficulties with gas bottle installation during the preceding two and a half years. He produced a gas certificate of compliance dated 20 November 2022, confirming the property was compliant at the time it was built. The Landlord stated that the certificate was provided to the gas company but was not accepted due to regulatory changes.
The Landlord submitted that he undertook all works required by the gas company, including installing plywood and relocating the power point. He accepted that the situation was inconvenient for the Tenant but stated that resolution was delayed by inconsistent and evolving advice from the gas company. On 30 October 2025, the gas company confirmed the property was compliant.
The Landlord accepted that the use of smaller gas bottles placed on a rubbish bin was not ideal but stated this was a temporary measure. He denied ever smelling gas at the property or receiving any complaints from the Tenant regarding a gas leak.
The Landlord submitted that any delay in responding to the Tenant’s communications occurred because he was awaiting information from the owner or relevant third parties before replying.
The Landlord also submitted that, apart from the initial days of the tenancy, the Tenant was not without gas or hot water, as smaller gas bottles were available as a short-term solution.
I do not find that the Landlord has failed to maintain the gas bottle area in a reasonable state of repair because when he became aware of the issue, he took steps to repair it.
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.
The Tenant submitted that the Landlord intended to act unlawfully because of the delayed time taken to remedy the issue.
The Landlord submitted that he did not intend to be non-compliant and that he was responsive throughout the tenancy. He stated that he sympathised with the Tenants issue as a parent himself and so he made genuine efforts to resolve the gas compliance issue promptly. He submitted that any delays in communication occurred because he was awaiting responses from the owner or contractor not because he was being evasive or unprofessional.
In considering the evidence, I am not satisfied that the Landlord has committed an unlawful act or intended to commit one. When advised of the issue, he took steps to repair them. The evidence establishes that the property had been compliant for approximately two years prior to this tenancy, that a gas compliance certificate was issued in 2022, and that the Landlord actively engaged with the gas company to determine what was required to achieve compliance. The Landlord undertook each item of work as it was identified and did not ignore or disregard the issue.
While the Tenant raised concerns about delayed communication, I accept the Landlord’s explanation that he responded once relevant information was available. I also note a difference in the parties’ communication styles. The Tenant preferred frequent and prompt communication, which she considered necessary given her responsibilities as a single parent. The Landlord, by contrast, tended to communicate once there had been progress toward resolving the issue. This difference does not, of itself, establish intentional delay or avoidance on the part of the Landlord. The Landlord also understood that the smaller gas bottle arrangement was temporary and provided a gas bottle to the Tenant. Taken together, these matters do not support a finding that the Landlord intended to delay repair the gas issue.
In assessing the impact of the unlawful act on the Tenant, I am not satisfied that the evidence establishes significant loss or harm. The Tenant did not provide receipts to substantiate food expenditure. Gas and hot water were available through the smaller gas bottle arrangement. There was no evidence of a gas leak. The medical certificate relied upon records the Tenant’s reported concerns and does not provide independent medical opinion linking the gas compliance issue to any deterioration in the child’s asthma.
Having regard to the absence of an unlawful act, the absence of intention, the limited evidence of loss on the Tenant, and the steps taken by the Landlord to remedy the issue, I am not satisfied that an award of exemplary damages would be just.
The claim is dismissed. Failure to repair the oven
The Tenant claimed that the Landlord took seven weeks to repair the oven which was not a reasonable timeframe to repair the oven. She stated that the stove top stopped working two days into the tenancy, requiring her to purchase takeaway meals and use an air fryer. She notified the Landlord on 29 August 2025. The Landlord requested a photograph of the issue and asked the Tenant to reset the oven, which she had already done. The oven was eventually repaired, but the Tenant submitted the repair took seven weeks.
The Landlord submitted that he was first notified of the issue on 22 August 2025. He engaged an oven specialist and requested that the specialist contact the Tenant. He followed up daily with the specialist over a three-week period but was unable to obtain a response. The Tenant also experienced difficulty contacting the specialist. The oven was ultimately replaced on 1 October 2025. The Landlord noted that previous tenants had not experienced any issues with the oven.
The Tenant submitted that the Landlord intentionally committed an unlawful act by failing to repair the oven promptly, which resulted in her having to purchase takeaway food and use an air fryer to cook meals.
The Landlord submitted that he did not act intentionally. He contacted the contractor daily over three weeks before the oven was taken for repair. He stated that the repair process took just over one month and that sourcing an alternative contractor was difficult once he had already engaged the original contractor.
Having considered the evidence, I am not satisfied that the oven was repaired in an unreasonable timeframe and that there was an intention to act unlawfully. The evidence demonstrates that the Landlord took steps to arrange the repair and that the delay was primarily attributable to the contractor’s lack of responsiveness. While the Tenant may have been entitled to seek compensation for the delay, no such claim was made. I therefore find that the claim for exemplary damages fails, as the Landlord’s conduct does not establish intentional unlawful action.
The claim is dismissed. Failure to lodge bond
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the full bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to lodge the full bond on 18 August 2026. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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.
The Tenant submitted that the total bond was $2640.00 and the Landlord failed to lodge $340.00 of this within the required timeframe. She submitted that, as an experienced property manager, he should not have made this error.
The Landlord submitted that he initially lodged $2,300.00 of the bond, which was $340.00 short due to a typographical error. He subsequently lodged the outstanding $340.00 on 4 September 2025 and provided email confirmation from Tenancy Services verifying the full bond had been lodged.
As the full bond has been filed within 23 days of the start of the tenancy, there is no unlawful act.
The claim is dismissed.
As both parties have not sought name suppression, this has not been granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5362742 — Leaks at 11C Hill Crescent, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5362742 — Leaks at 11C Hill Crescent, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions