What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5364684 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 5364684?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5364684?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5364684?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12573854-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5364684 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 5364684?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5364684?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5364684?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12573854-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

117 Wharf Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5364684 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5364684 — net $528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: s45(1) (c) glass	$250.00	s45(1) (c) glass
Exemplary damages: s30	$250.00	s30
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$528.00
Bond	$2,378.83
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$528.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5364684 — net $528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: s45(1) (c) glass	$250.00	s45(1) (c) glass
Exemplary damages: s30	$250.00	s30
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$528.00
Bond	$2,378.83
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 Tenant name and identifying details.
Shelter Realty Limited $0.00 immediately, being exemplary damages for landlord’s breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and reimbursement of the filing fee, as calculated and set out below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,378.83 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This was a tenancy that commenced on 14 May 2020 and ended on 2 May 2025 after the tenant served her 28 days’ notice to terminate on the landlord. Initially another property management company had been managing the property during the tenancy before Shelter Realty Limited to took over the management.
At the end of the tenancy the parties sought to finalise any debts owing. The landlord had advised the tenant that she owed $185.71 in rent arrears and a small water bill of $35.46. The landlord was refunded $221.17 from the bond. The remainder of the bond $2378.83 is still held at the bond centre until resolution of these claims.
Subsequentially the landlord has stated that they have updated their records, and the tenant owes an additional $880.62 for rent arrears. The tenant strongly denies this and said she was in credit as she paid in advance therefore her rent payments covered until the end of her tenancy.
This dispute is complicated by two further issues: a) The previous Property Management company were not forthcoming with the rent schedule during their management of the property. b) The records reflect that the tenant paid the bond plus one weeks rent in advance, but this is not reflected in the landlords rent schedule. c) The property manager who had been dealing with the tenant had provided her with conflicting information about the status of her rent arrears and differing rent statements.
The landlord has made a claim for additional rent arrears, reimbursement of the filing fee and partial refund of the bond.
The tenant is disputing the rent arrears claim and seeks a full refund of the remainder of the bond at the bond centre. The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to keep adequate records and has failed to comply with New Zealand building codes. Relevant legal considerations:
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). As 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), to 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.
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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach.
Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. Landlord claim:
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which they claim prove the amount owing.
However, I share the tenant’s confusion regarding the rent arrears for the following reasons: a) The landlord had already agreed that the rent arrears were $185.71 and has received a refund from the bond centre to reflect that. b) The tenant had communications with the actual property manager, and she had provided rent schedules that were reporting different amount on the same day. This the landlord claims were because they had not received the full rent ledger for the previous property manager. However, the tenant relied on what she was told by her property manager and was never in a position to receive a full rent schedule for the whole period of her tenancy until now, despite repeatedly asking for one. c) Regardless of the landlords position they had an absolute obligation to keep full and correct documents and records. Once they made reasonable efforts to obtain the information from the previous property manager, they received the records.
It is the party that brings the claim that has to provide the necessary evidence to prove their claim. I am satisfied that the landlord has not proven their claim and therefore I must dismiss the claim for rent arrears.
The remaining bond held at the bond centre is to be refunded to the tenant. I am not awarding the filing fee to the landlord as they have not been successful with their claim. Tenants claim:
[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 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.
The tenant told the Tribunal about issues she had with an ongoing leak in the garage, palm fronds getting caught up in the power lines and not replacing broken windows with safety glass.
I have considered the evidence regarding the ongoing leak in the garage, and I find that the landlord has not failed to maintain the premises and keep it in a state of reasonable repair. Upon being advised of the issue the landlord took all reasonable steps to engage the services of a roofer and plumber and attempt to remedy the problem. I find no issue with the landlord actions relating to the roof leaks.
The property has large palm trees at the front that where damaged in a storm. The fronds from the palm tree became caught around the power lines to the property. The tenant says the landlord did not act quickly in this emergency situation and she had to resolve the problem by recourse to friends to assist.
The landlord advised the landlord who went to the property within a day and by this time the fronds had been removed.
The tenant told the Tribunal about a power box outside the property that caught fire. She complained of power surges as a result. I find the two examples of the alleged lack of maintenance relating to the fronds and the power box to be one off incidents outside the control of the landlord and not a breach of the RTA by the landlord. It does appear that the landlord had attempted to respond adequately and quickly when they were aware of issues.
The tenant told the Tribunal about two glass windowpanes that had been broken during the course of the tenancy. On both occasions the landlord did not put safety glass in the windows and replaced it with normal glass. Both windows are large and from floor level up to above 800mm. In New Zealand, safety glass is required for windows where the lowest point of the glazing is within 800mm of the floor.
From 31 May 2027 there was a change affecting the glazing requirements in buildings. NZ4223.3.2016 provides a means of compliance with the relevant performances’ requirements of Building Codes.
The tenant advised the landlord of the building code relating to lower-level glazing but was told they only had to provide “like for like”. At the hearing the landlord advised that the owner did not approve the replacement of the broken glass with safety glass.
I understand the conflicting position the property manager would have been in; however, the owner is receiving rent from the tenant to live in this property and therefore should be entitled to the protection of building codes and regulations as they apply to her home.
The reason for the change in glazing requirements for low level windows is a safety issue for occupants of homes.
I do not consider the landlord has failed to maintain the property relating to the fronds, power box, power surges and garage leaks.
The landlord has breached their obligation to comply with the relevant building codes relating to safety glass in low-level glazing on windows. 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.
There is an absolute expectation that the landlord will comply with building codes and regulations as they apply to their property. The reasons that these codes have been amended is to reflect the perceived safety needs of non- safety glass in lower doors and windows.
It appears the only reason that the owner failed to comply with their obligation was the additional cost for safety glass as opposed to non-safety glass.
I am only awarding a nominal amount for the landlord’s breach because on the whole the landlord/owner does appear to undertake required maintenance and repairs when needed. I award the sum of $250.00 to mark the landlords breach of their obligations. Failure to keep records:
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not kept records of rent and bond paid.
A landlord must keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant. See section 30(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 $350.00. See section 30(2) and Schedule 1A RTA).
I have covered this claim fully in paragraph 18 above. I accept that the breach was related to the previous property manager not providing the information when asked. However, this is an obligation on any property manager that should have been dealt with immediately on taking over the property. 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 that 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.
A tenant should have the right to expect that when she requests information about her tenancy that the information will be given and be correct. That was not the case on this occasion. I am awarding $250.00 for the landlord’s breach to keep records as required under the RTA. Bond/Filing Fee/Suppression:
The bond is to be refunded to the tenant.
The tenant has applied for suppression of her name and details and as she has been largely successful, I will grant suppression.
Because Shelter Realty Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5364684 — State of repair at 117 Wharf Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5364684 — State of repair at 117 Wharf Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions