What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5380141 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 5380141?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5380141?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5380141?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13436323-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5380141 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 5380141?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5380141?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5380141?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13436323-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

76B Hankey Street, Mount Cook, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5380141 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5380141 — net $528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: inadequate tenancy agreement	$500.00	inadequate tenancy agreement
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 tenant’s name and identifying details.
David Bradley must pay [The tenant/s] $528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by [The tenant’s representative].
The landlord and the tenant agreed that she would rent a small unit for $300 a week. The tenant was there with her sister and a friend on 20 June 2025. The tenant paid $300 and the landlord wrote a brief note recording the payment of rent in advance. The tenant was given a key. Not long after the sister leaned back towards rail around the deck. The rail gave way and the sister fell metres and was seriously injured. The tenant said she no longer wanted to move in. The sister was taken to hospital with a suspected broken back. The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages because of breaches to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The questions I have to decide include: • Was there a breach of the duty to maintain and repair the deck? • Was the unit reasonably clean and tidy? • Was the tenancy agreement adequate?
I am aware that Ms Drew submitted further information after the hearing but I have not looked at it and it has not formed part of my reasoning for this decision.

Was there a breach of the duty to maintain and repair the deck?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45 of the RTA, which requires the landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant submitted that the deck railing was not in reasonable repair when the tenancy started. The tenant had two witnesses, including her sister, who said the deck railing was loose. The landlord said he walks past that part of the deck railing everyday and he had no idea the railing was loose. He also said he suspected a disgruntled former tenant had sabotaged the railing. He repaired the railing as soon as he could after the accident.
The landlord’s obligation under section 45 RTA is to investigate and repair an issue brought to the landlord’s attention. This must be done within a reasonable time frame. There is a corresponding responsibility on tenants to report maintenance. The way the Tribunal usually considers maintenance claims is to look at when the tenant reported the need for maintenance or repair, and to consider if the landlord’s response was reasonable.
I do not find I should vary the usual practice for this claim. The rail failed within the first hour of the tenancy and the sister’s injuries were significant. But there is no evidence the landlord knew or should have known about the unsecured railing, and the railing was repaired within a reasonable timeframe. I do not find there was a breach of the duty to maintain or repair the deck. All claims relating to the deck, including the claims for compensation, are dismissed.

Was the unit reasonably clean and tidy?

The tenant also claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45 RTA by not providing the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. In particular the carpet was very dirty. The landlord said the previous tenant ruined the carpet and it needs to be replaced. The landlord gave the tenant the option of living with the dirty carpet or paying an extra $20 a week for six months so the landlord could save up and buy some more carpet.
The law requires the landlord to provide the house, and the carpets, in a reasonably clean condition. The premises should not have been rented with carpet that was so dirty it needed to be replaced. The landlord must have money for maintenance. The landlord cannot defer maintenance during a tenancy or ask the tenant to pay for it. I find there was a breach of section 45 RTA.
The tenant has claimed compensation and exemplary damages. I can only allow compensation if there has been a loss. I am not persuaded there was a loss to the tenant. The tenancy lasted about an hour. The landlord returned the $300 paid for rent for the first week after the accident. The tenant did spend time packing before she signed the tenancy agreement, but she had not moved her belongings, and her old landlord agreed she could withdraw her notice and return to her tenancy. Consequently I find there was no loss to the tenant. All claims relating to cleanliness are dismissed.

Was the tenancy agreement adequate?

The parties agree there was a concluded contract on 20 June 2025 to rent the unit. The only written confirmation of tenancy is actually a receipt for the $300 rent received by the landlord. The short note contains the landlord’s name, address and telephone number, and the address of the tenancy premises. Under section 13 RTA the landlord should have provided a proper tenancy agreement in writing before the tenancy started. As well, section 13A RTA states landlords must include information about the tenant, the tenancy start date, the insurance excess, and information about the Healthy Homes Standards.
Section 13A(1F) RTA provides that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they fail to include the required information and a healthy homes statement. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $750 for failure to provide the information. I find the landlord 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) RTA.
I find the landlord acted intentionally. In the Tribunal order [2025] NZTT 4936555, dated 3 March 2025, the Adjudicator found the landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to provide and execute a proper tenancy agreement. Exemplary damages were explained. The landlord repeating the breach must have been intentional. There was little effect for the tenant because she did not move in. However, the whole point of section 13A RTA is that landlords disclose specific information up front so tenants can choose the best tenancy for them. There is public interest in full disclosure so tenants are not misled.
I allow $500 in exemplary damages which is mid scale because of the previous order against the landlord.
I have not made an order restraining the landlord because this is the first lot of exemplary damages the landlord has had to pay, and I will give him this opportunity to learn the importance of providing a proper tenancy agreement. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
There are applications for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
I have allowed suppression for the tenant because she is the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords have to pay exemplary damages.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5380141 — net $528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: inadequate tenancy agreement	$500.00	inadequate tenancy agreement
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 tenant’s name and identifying details.
David Bradley must pay [The tenant/s] $528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by [The tenant’s representative].
The landlord and the tenant agreed that she would rent a small unit for $300 a week. The tenant was there with her sister and a friend on 20 June 2025. The tenant paid $300 and the landlord wrote a brief note recording the payment of rent in advance. The tenant was given a key. Not long after the sister leaned back towards rail around the deck. The rail gave way and the sister fell metres and was seriously injured. The tenant said she no longer wanted to move in. The sister was taken to hospital with a suspected broken back. The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages because of breaches to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The questions I have to decide include: • Was there a breach of the duty to maintain and repair the deck? • Was the unit reasonably clean and tidy? • Was the tenancy agreement adequate?
I am aware that Ms Drew submitted further information after the hearing but I have not looked at it and it has not formed part of my reasoning for this decision.

Was there a breach of the duty to maintain and repair the deck?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45 of the RTA, which requires the landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant submitted that the deck railing was not in reasonable repair when the tenancy started. The tenant had two witnesses, including her sister, who said the deck railing was loose. The landlord said he walks past that part of the deck railing everyday and he had no idea the railing was loose. He also said he suspected a disgruntled former tenant had sabotaged the railing. He repaired the railing as soon as he could after the accident.
The landlord’s obligation under section 45 RTA is to investigate and repair an issue brought to the landlord’s attention. This must be done within a reasonable time frame. There is a corresponding responsibility on tenants to report maintenance. The way the Tribunal usually considers maintenance claims is to look at when the tenant reported the need for maintenance or repair, and to consider if the landlord’s response was reasonable.
I do not find I should vary the usual practice for this claim. The rail failed within the first hour of the tenancy and the sister’s injuries were significant. But there is no evidence the landlord knew or should have known about the unsecured railing, and the railing was repaired within a reasonable timeframe. I do not find there was a breach of the duty to maintain or repair the deck. All claims relating to the deck, including the claims for compensation, are dismissed.

Was the unit reasonably clean and tidy?

The tenant also claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45 RTA by not providing the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. In particular the carpet was very dirty. The landlord said the previous tenant ruined the carpet and it needs to be replaced. The landlord gave the tenant the option of living with the dirty carpet or paying an extra $20 a week for six months so the landlord could save up and buy some more carpet.
The law requires the landlord to provide the house, and the carpets, in a reasonably clean condition. The premises should not have been rented with carpet that was so dirty it needed to be replaced. The landlord must have money for maintenance. The landlord cannot defer maintenance during a tenancy or ask the tenant to pay for it. I find there was a breach of section 45 RTA.
The tenant has claimed compensation and exemplary damages. I can only allow compensation if there has been a loss. I am not persuaded there was a loss to the tenant. The tenancy lasted about an hour. The landlord returned the $300 paid for rent for the first week after the accident. The tenant did spend time packing before she signed the tenancy agreement, but she had not moved her belongings, and her old landlord agreed she could withdraw her notice and return to her tenancy. Consequently I find there was no loss to the tenant. All claims relating to cleanliness are dismissed.

Was the tenancy agreement adequate?

The parties agree there was a concluded contract on 20 June 2025 to rent the unit. The only written confirmation of tenancy is actually a receipt for the $300 rent received by the landlord. The short note contains the landlord’s name, address and telephone number, and the address of the tenancy premises. Under section 13 RTA the landlord should have provided a proper tenancy agreement in writing before the tenancy started. As well, section 13A RTA states landlords must include information about the tenant, the tenancy start date, the insurance excess, and information about the Healthy Homes Standards.
Section 13A(1F) RTA provides that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they fail to include the required information and a healthy homes statement. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $750 for failure to provide the information. I find the landlord 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) RTA.
I find the landlord acted intentionally. In the Tribunal order [2025] NZTT 4936555, dated 3 March 2025, the Adjudicator found the landlord committed an unlawful act by failing to provide and execute a proper tenancy agreement. Exemplary damages were explained. The landlord repeating the breach must have been intentional. There was little effect for the tenant because she did not move in. However, the whole point of section 13A RTA is that landlords disclose specific information up front so tenants can choose the best tenancy for them. There is public interest in full disclosure so tenants are not misled.
I allow $500 in exemplary damages which is mid scale because of the previous order against the landlord.
I have not made an order restraining the landlord because this is the first lot of exemplary damages the landlord has had to pay, and I will give him this opportunity to learn the importance of providing a proper tenancy agreement. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
There are applications for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
I have allowed suppression for the tenant because she is the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords have to pay exemplary damages.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5380141 — Exemplary damages at 76B Hankey Street, Mount Cook, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5380141 — Exemplary damages at 76B Hankey Street, Mount Cook, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach of the duty to maintain and repair the deck?

Was the unit reasonably clean and tidy?

Was the tenancy agreement adequate?

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach of the duty to maintain and repair the deck?

Was the unit reasonably clean and tidy?

Was the tenancy agreement adequate?

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions