What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5405588 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,128.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5405588?

Compensation: Leak In Wardrobe: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5405588?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5405588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13836966-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5405588 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,128.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5405588?

Compensation: Leak In Wardrobe: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5405588?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5405588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13836966-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

234 Pipiwai Road, Ngararatunua, RD 6, Whangarei 0176 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5405588 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5405588 — net $1,128.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Leak in wardrobe	$350.00	Leak in wardrobe
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain (window latch	$250.00	Failure to maintain (window latch
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$500.00	Unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,128.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,128.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,128.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Background

The adjournment order dated 9 June 2026 sets out the background to the application.
The second hearing took place by videoconference on 1 July 2026. Both parties attended the hearing. Bond
Landlords must forward any bond payments to the Bond Centre within 23- working days of receipt.
Failure to do so is an unlawful act, and the Tenancy Tribunal may award exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00.
The Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is just to do so, if the Tribunal is satisfied that the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and also having regard to: 1 a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
It is not disputed that Mr Currie received a bond of $500.00 from Mr Tooke at the start of this tenancy, and that he did not forward the bond to the Bond Centre.
My finding is that it would not be just to make an award of exemplary damages in this instance, having regard to the following factors: a. Mr Currie genuinely understood that this was a flat / house sharing arrangement and therefore outside of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. b. Mr Currie held the bond and refunded it in full to Mr Tooke. c. Mr Tooke was not disadvantaged by Mr Currie not forwarding the bond. Roof leak
Mr Tooke said he noticed a leak inside the wardrobe in his room soon after the start of the tenancy in February 2024.
The leak was from around a chimney, and it tracked through the wardrobe down to the wood burner in the kitchen/dining area below.
The first evidence of written communication about the leak is messages from Mr Tooke and his flatmate Niko to Mr Currie’s daughter to (Marama Schlebach) in July 2024. The messages do not specifically refer to leaks in the wardrobe or around the chimney, but they refer to leaks “in Jayden’s room”.
On 21 January 2025 Mr Tooke sent Ms Schlebach a message: 1 Section 109(3) RTA After this overnight rain we’ve had I’m still finding the wardrobe floor in the bedroom soaking wet and its continuing down and puddling on the kitchen floor.
Ms Schlebach replied: That super sucks. Niko told me earlier and I’ve messaged dad. The company that came to look said access was too hard, I think dad will find someone with a bit more ingenuity to get it sorted!
On 7 August 2025 Mr Tooke received a message from Ms Schlebach: There’s a guy coming to look at the roof in about 30 just FYI. Doesn’t need to go inside. Just letting you know!
On 18 August 2025, a roofing contractor (On To It Spouting and Roofing) sent Ms Schlebach a quote to “re-roof rusted dormer roof with 55g coloursteel” and “make good concrete tile roof – replace broken tiles and valley cuts, reset slipped valley cuts, unblock valleys, replace missing gable mortar and area of ridge mortar”.
Mr Currie said that he was aware of leaks from the roof and he (and the contractors) addressed them as best they could. Mr Currie noted the difficulties with resolving roof leak problems – sometimes the leaks only occur in certain weather conditions, often it is a case of carrying out a repair and seeing if it works, roofing contractors are busy and are unable to work if the weather is bad, etc.
Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state or repair 2 , and comply with all requirements in respect of buildings health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. 3
The landlord’s obligation to repair is not absolute. Landlords do not have to identify and prevent latent defects in the premises. 4
The landlord’s duty is to respond to maintenance issues that are brought to their attention in an appropriate and timely way. 5
In this instance: a. The landlord was aware of a leak in Mr Tooke’s room by July 2024 at the latest. b. There was on-going investigation into leaks through until August 2025, when the landlord received a quote for replacing the roof. 2 Section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 3 Section 45(1)(c) RTA 4 Barfoot & Thompson v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2025—004-1762 7 November 2007 5 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009—085-1431, 24 February 2010
I acknowledge Mr Currie’s arguments about the difficulties of diagnosing and remedying roof leaks. In this instance it seems that there may have been multiple leaks, given the eventual conclusion that the roof needed to be replaced. Mr Currie did not ignore the issue, but the continuing leak problem during the tenancy caused some frustration and loss of amenity for Mr Tooke. Mr Tooke said that he did not use that part of the wardrobe.
Having regard to these factors, my finding is that there is no basis for an award of exemplary damages, but it is appropriate to award some low-level compensation to Mr Tooke to reflect that loss of amenity.
I will award $350.00. Healthy homes standards
Mr Tooke said that: a. The single fixed means of heating in the property, a heat pump, was non- operable for the duration of his tenancy. b. He could not recall seeing a rangehood or extractor fan in the kitchen.
Mr Currie provided a photograph showing an extractor fan in the wall of the kitchen, which Mr Tooke accepted.
Mr Currie submitted that the heat pump was functional. He has since replaced upgraded the heat pump.
There is no evidence of Mr Tooke (or his flatmate) notifying Mr Currie or Ms Schlebach about any issues with the heat pump. Mr Tooke said that the heat pump had wires protruding from the back of it and it was obviously non- functional, but he did not have photographs.
This part of Mr Tooke’s application is not proven. Broken latch on downstairs window
Mr Tooke said that: a. The latch on the downstairs bathroom window was broken from the beginning of his tenancy. b. When Mr Currie first showed him the property, he gained access through this same window. c. The latch was not fixed, and the premises remained unsecure, for the duration of his tenancy.
Mr Currie said that: a. Replacing window latches is part of normal maintenance. b. He replaced multiple latches on windows over the time that Mr Tooke was there. c. He is certain that he replaced this latch also, but he does not remember when. d. Mr Tooke did not use this bathroom.
I was provided with a screenshot of an exchange of messages between Mr Tooke and Mr Currie on 14 July 2025. Mr Tooke asked for an update on when a glazier was coming fix the windows and latches. Mr Currie replied “what’s up the with the latches”. Mr Tooke replied: Same as it’s always been, the downstairs bathroom window latch has been nonexistent since before we moved in. It’s the same one you used to climb into the house to show us around.
Mr Tooke agreed that he did not use the downstairs bathroom, but the broken latch is an obvious safety risk.
Mr Currie failed to meet his duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
This is an unlawful act, and the Tribunal can award exemplary damages of up to $7,200.
In this instance, the maintenance issue is singular and relatively minor. It is appropriate to make an award at the low end of the scale. I accept that Mr Currie did not refuse to maintain the premises, that he replaced other latches, and that the failure to replace this one was an oversight.
Having regard to the factors set out in paragraph 5 above, I will award exemplary damages of $250. Unlawful entry / breach of quiet enjoyment
Mr Tooke said that: a. The landlord decided to convert the property to use it as an Airbnb. He was given notice. b. In the latter stages of his tenancy Mr Currie’s wife and daughter, and contractors, came to the property frequently and without notice to carry out work. c. On occasions Mr Currie’s wife or daughter would stay late into the evening and night, carrying out work. d. On one occasion he came out of the shower and found Mr Currie’s wife and some neighbours inside the house.
Mr Currie acknowledged that things were “busy” near the end of Mr Tooke’s tenancy. He said that the neighbours showed up unexpectedly and that his daughter apologised to Mr Tooke for that incident. Mr Currie said that throughout the tenancy he understood that this was a flatmate / house sharing arrangement.
Landlords must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of their tenants. 6 Landlords have a limited right to enter the premises. They may only enter for certain purposes (such as maintenance or inspection). They must give notice, or have the tenant’s consent. It is an unlawful act for a landlord to enter the premises without notice or consent. 7
Mr Tooke’s screenshots show that there was some communication from Ms Schlebach about some of the entries, but there is sufficient evidence to show that there were multiple unlawful entries, in particular the occasion when Ms Schlebach was there with the neighbours, and when persons were at the property carrying out repairs and maintenance after 7pm. 8
These incidents were disruptive and upsetting. It is appropriate to award exemplary damages. The maximum award of exemplary damages for unlawful entry is $1,500 per incident.
In this case the number of instances of unlawful entry is not known, and it would be unjust and excessively punitive to consider multiple awards. Again, it is a relevant mitigating factor that the landlord genuinely understood that they were outside of the Residential Tenancies Act and that it was not unlawful for them to come to the property without formal notice to Mr Tooke. I also note that the landlord agreed to waive the last week of rent.
On balance, I consider that a total award of $500.00 in exemplary damages is appropriate Water
Mr Tooke said that the property was without water for the last few days of the tenancy.
I was provided with a screenshot of a message from Mr Tooke to Ms Schlebach on Friday 12 December 2025. Ms Schlebach replied that he could use their house. Mr Tooke responded: “Don’t stress about me hah, I’m having a shower at my grandmother’s place tonight after work while I go visit her”. 6 Section 38(2) RTA 7 Section 48 RTA 8 Section 48(2)(cc) RTA
Mr Currie recalled that the issue was resolved the next morning. He said that someone had turned off the pump. When the pump was turned on again, water supply was restored.
Mr Tooke said that it was not turned on the next day and there was no water until he left the tenancy on Sunday 14 December.
It is not possible to know how the pump came to be switched off. This is not a failure of maintenance by the landlord – the system did not break or require repair. On the evidence available to me it is unclear when the water was restored. There is one proven message from Mr Tooke, and in that message he indicated to the landlord that he was unconcerned about the water.
Having regard to those factors my finding is that it is not appropriate to make an award of compensation or exemplary damages in respect of this issue. Filing fee
Mr Tooke has been partially successful in his application and I will also award him the filing fee of $28.00. 9

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5405588 — net $1,128.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Leak in wardrobe	$350.00	Leak in wardrobe
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain (window latch	$250.00	Failure to maintain (window latch
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$500.00	Unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,128.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,128.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,128.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Background

The adjournment order dated 9 June 2026 sets out the background to the application.
The second hearing took place by videoconference on 1 July 2026. Both parties attended the hearing. Bond
Landlords must forward any bond payments to the Bond Centre within 23- working days of receipt.
Failure to do so is an unlawful act, and the Tenancy Tribunal may award exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00.
The Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is just to do so, if the Tribunal is satisfied that the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and also having regard to: 1 a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.
It is not disputed that Mr Currie received a bond of $500.00 from Mr Tooke at the start of this tenancy, and that he did not forward the bond to the Bond Centre.
My finding is that it would not be just to make an award of exemplary damages in this instance, having regard to the following factors: a. Mr Currie genuinely understood that this was a flat / house sharing arrangement and therefore outside of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. b. Mr Currie held the bond and refunded it in full to Mr Tooke. c. Mr Tooke was not disadvantaged by Mr Currie not forwarding the bond. Roof leak
Mr Tooke said he noticed a leak inside the wardrobe in his room soon after the start of the tenancy in February 2024.
The leak was from around a chimney, and it tracked through the wardrobe down to the wood burner in the kitchen/dining area below.
The first evidence of written communication about the leak is messages from Mr Tooke and his flatmate Niko to Mr Currie’s daughter to (Marama Schlebach) in July 2024. The messages do not specifically refer to leaks in the wardrobe or around the chimney, but they refer to leaks “in Jayden’s room”.
On 21 January 2025 Mr Tooke sent Ms Schlebach a message: 1 Section 109(3) RTA After this overnight rain we’ve had I’m still finding the wardrobe floor in the bedroom soaking wet and its continuing down and puddling on the kitchen floor.
Ms Schlebach replied: That super sucks. Niko told me earlier and I’ve messaged dad. The company that came to look said access was too hard, I think dad will find someone with a bit more ingenuity to get it sorted!
On 7 August 2025 Mr Tooke received a message from Ms Schlebach: There’s a guy coming to look at the roof in about 30 just FYI. Doesn’t need to go inside. Just letting you know!
On 18 August 2025, a roofing contractor (On To It Spouting and Roofing) sent Ms Schlebach a quote to “re-roof rusted dormer roof with 55g coloursteel” and “make good concrete tile roof – replace broken tiles and valley cuts, reset slipped valley cuts, unblock valleys, replace missing gable mortar and area of ridge mortar”.
Mr Currie said that he was aware of leaks from the roof and he (and the contractors) addressed them as best they could. Mr Currie noted the difficulties with resolving roof leak problems – sometimes the leaks only occur in certain weather conditions, often it is a case of carrying out a repair and seeing if it works, roofing contractors are busy and are unable to work if the weather is bad, etc.
Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state or repair 2 , and comply with all requirements in respect of buildings health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. 3
The landlord’s obligation to repair is not absolute. Landlords do not have to identify and prevent latent defects in the premises. 4
The landlord’s duty is to respond to maintenance issues that are brought to their attention in an appropriate and timely way. 5
In this instance: a. The landlord was aware of a leak in Mr Tooke’s room by July 2024 at the latest. b. There was on-going investigation into leaks through until August 2025, when the landlord received a quote for replacing the roof. 2 Section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 3 Section 45(1)(c) RTA 4 Barfoot & Thompson v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2025—004-1762 7 November 2007 5 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009—085-1431, 24 February 2010
I acknowledge Mr Currie’s arguments about the difficulties of diagnosing and remedying roof leaks. In this instance it seems that there may have been multiple leaks, given the eventual conclusion that the roof needed to be replaced. Mr Currie did not ignore the issue, but the continuing leak problem during the tenancy caused some frustration and loss of amenity for Mr Tooke. Mr Tooke said that he did not use that part of the wardrobe.
Having regard to these factors, my finding is that there is no basis for an award of exemplary damages, but it is appropriate to award some low-level compensation to Mr Tooke to reflect that loss of amenity.
I will award $350.00. Healthy homes standards
Mr Tooke said that: a. The single fixed means of heating in the property, a heat pump, was non- operable for the duration of his tenancy. b. He could not recall seeing a rangehood or extractor fan in the kitchen.
Mr Currie provided a photograph showing an extractor fan in the wall of the kitchen, which Mr Tooke accepted.
Mr Currie submitted that the heat pump was functional. He has since replaced upgraded the heat pump.
There is no evidence of Mr Tooke (or his flatmate) notifying Mr Currie or Ms Schlebach about any issues with the heat pump. Mr Tooke said that the heat pump had wires protruding from the back of it and it was obviously non- functional, but he did not have photographs.
This part of Mr Tooke’s application is not proven. Broken latch on downstairs window
Mr Tooke said that: a. The latch on the downstairs bathroom window was broken from the beginning of his tenancy. b. When Mr Currie first showed him the property, he gained access through this same window. c. The latch was not fixed, and the premises remained unsecure, for the duration of his tenancy.
Mr Currie said that: a. Replacing window latches is part of normal maintenance. b. He replaced multiple latches on windows over the time that Mr Tooke was there. c. He is certain that he replaced this latch also, but he does not remember when. d. Mr Tooke did not use this bathroom.
I was provided with a screenshot of an exchange of messages between Mr Tooke and Mr Currie on 14 July 2025. Mr Tooke asked for an update on when a glazier was coming fix the windows and latches. Mr Currie replied “what’s up the with the latches”. Mr Tooke replied: Same as it’s always been, the downstairs bathroom window latch has been nonexistent since before we moved in. It’s the same one you used to climb into the house to show us around.
Mr Tooke agreed that he did not use the downstairs bathroom, but the broken latch is an obvious safety risk.
Mr Currie failed to meet his duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
This is an unlawful act, and the Tribunal can award exemplary damages of up to $7,200.
In this instance, the maintenance issue is singular and relatively minor. It is appropriate to make an award at the low end of the scale. I accept that Mr Currie did not refuse to maintain the premises, that he replaced other latches, and that the failure to replace this one was an oversight.
Having regard to the factors set out in paragraph 5 above, I will award exemplary damages of $250. Unlawful entry / breach of quiet enjoyment
Mr Tooke said that: a. The landlord decided to convert the property to use it as an Airbnb. He was given notice. b. In the latter stages of his tenancy Mr Currie’s wife and daughter, and contractors, came to the property frequently and without notice to carry out work. c. On occasions Mr Currie’s wife or daughter would stay late into the evening and night, carrying out work. d. On one occasion he came out of the shower and found Mr Currie’s wife and some neighbours inside the house.
Mr Currie acknowledged that things were “busy” near the end of Mr Tooke’s tenancy. He said that the neighbours showed up unexpectedly and that his daughter apologised to Mr Tooke for that incident. Mr Currie said that throughout the tenancy he understood that this was a flatmate / house sharing arrangement.
Landlords must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of their tenants. 6 Landlords have a limited right to enter the premises. They may only enter for certain purposes (such as maintenance or inspection). They must give notice, or have the tenant’s consent. It is an unlawful act for a landlord to enter the premises without notice or consent. 7
Mr Tooke’s screenshots show that there was some communication from Ms Schlebach about some of the entries, but there is sufficient evidence to show that there were multiple unlawful entries, in particular the occasion when Ms Schlebach was there with the neighbours, and when persons were at the property carrying out repairs and maintenance after 7pm. 8
These incidents were disruptive and upsetting. It is appropriate to award exemplary damages. The maximum award of exemplary damages for unlawful entry is $1,500 per incident.
In this case the number of instances of unlawful entry is not known, and it would be unjust and excessively punitive to consider multiple awards. Again, it is a relevant mitigating factor that the landlord genuinely understood that they were outside of the Residential Tenancies Act and that it was not unlawful for them to come to the property without formal notice to Mr Tooke. I also note that the landlord agreed to waive the last week of rent.
On balance, I consider that a total award of $500.00 in exemplary damages is appropriate Water
Mr Tooke said that the property was without water for the last few days of the tenancy.
I was provided with a screenshot of a message from Mr Tooke to Ms Schlebach on Friday 12 December 2025. Ms Schlebach replied that he could use their house. Mr Tooke responded: “Don’t stress about me hah, I’m having a shower at my grandmother’s place tonight after work while I go visit her”. 6 Section 38(2) RTA 7 Section 48 RTA 8 Section 48(2)(cc) RTA
Mr Currie recalled that the issue was resolved the next morning. He said that someone had turned off the pump. When the pump was turned on again, water supply was restored.
Mr Tooke said that it was not turned on the next day and there was no water until he left the tenancy on Sunday 14 December.
It is not possible to know how the pump came to be switched off. This is not a failure of maintenance by the landlord – the system did not break or require repair. On the evidence available to me it is unclear when the water was restored. There is one proven message from Mr Tooke, and in that message he indicated to the landlord that he was unconcerned about the water.
Having regard to those factors my finding is that it is not appropriate to make an award of compensation or exemplary damages in respect of this issue. Filing fee
Mr Tooke has been partially successful in his application and I will also award him the filing fee of $28.00. 9

Tenancy Tribunal case 5405588 — Exemplary damages at 234 Pipiwai Road, Ngararatunua, RD 6, Whangarei 0176

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5405588 — Exemplary damages at 234 Pipiwai Road, Ngararatunua, RD 6, Whangarei 0176

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