Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5420899 — Exemplary damages at 16 Orient Street, Cromwell, Cromwell 9310
Decided 16 Jun 2026 · Published 16 Jun 2026 · Application 5420899
- Exemplary damages
- State of repair
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- Nina Kristensen and Frands Kristensen must pay [The tenant/s] $12,028.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing on 12 June 2026.
- [The tenant/s] claim the landlord has not lodged the 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 bond during the tenancy which lasted 152 weeks. 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 landlord says that she had assumed that her property manager had received the bond and ought to have lodged it accordingly. The landlord only discovered that the bond had not been lodged when the landlord tried to complete a bond refund form to return the entire bond to the tenant.
- I do not accept the landlord’s explanation that her property manager should have lodged the bond. The bond was paid directly into the landlord’s bank account as stated on the tenancy agreement. There was no property manager or agent for the landlord on the record nor on the tenancy agreement.
- The property management company that the landlord refers to appear have acted for the landlord in a capacity as letting agent only. The landlord’s explanation that she had not noticed the bond being paid to her is extraordinary. The bond together with the first week’s rent had been paid directly to the landlord in her bank account.
- There was no intermediary or agent on payment of rent and bond; the bond had not been paid to a third party to possibly give rise to a breach of bond lodgment duties by the purported property management company alluded to by the landlord. Should the rent be missed, or bond be unpaid, I doubt that the landlord would have been as amiss in the same manner that the bond had been missed by the landlord as contended by the landlord.
- For those reasons, I consider an award of exemplary damages of $1,000 appropriate. The one factor that counts in the landlord’s favour was the landlord’s immediate return of the bond after finally realising that it had not been lodged after sending the bond refund form with Tenancy Services at the end of the tenancy.
- I now address the tenant’s claim that the landlord has breached her quiet enjoyment in circumstances which amounted to harassment.
- After the tenant gave 21 days’ notice to end the periodic tenancy in September 2025, the landlord maintained that the tenant could not do so purportedly due to the parties being on a fixed term tenancy to November 2025.
- The fixed term tenancy however had been well and truly ended two years ago in November 2023 and became periodic thereafter. The tenant was well entitled to give 21 days’ notice that she did and the landlord was clearly mistaken when the landlord responded to the tenant that they could not technically end the tenancy by notice.
- The landlord’s communication after the tenant’s notice, in particular on prospective tenants’ viewing of the property, had been predicated on the landlord having “graciously released” the tenant from their “fixed term tenancy” obligations.
- However, it was clear the landlord was mistaken on the status of the parties’ tenancy, which had been periodic for close to 2 years.
- Be that as it may, judging from the texts and email communications by the landlord, I do not consider the landlord have breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises under section 38 RTA. The landlord’s mistaken belief pertaining to the status of the tenancy and subsequent actions at the end of the tenancy did not amount to harassment.
- For those reasons, I decline the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages and compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment.
- The fact the mistaken belief by the landlord led to the tenant feeling a little stressed underscores the benefits of having a professional property manager manage her property while the landlord was living far away in Auckland. By a small margin, the landlord is successful in avoiding an adverse finding on the issue of breach of quiet enjoyment in this instance.
- I now consider the primary cause of action filed by the tenant.
- [The tenant] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Under section 45, a landlord must: a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair c) comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 d) 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.
- I firstly set out the relevant legal principles that I must address when dealing with complaints raised by the tenant regarding maintenance.
- Under section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
- A landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they applied to the premises.
- Where the landlord is genuinely and reasonably unaware of maintenance concerns, the tenant has a corresponding duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs (see section 40(1)(d) RTA).
- The landlord’s general obligation is therefore to repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair, either from observing the property or notice from the tenant: “... the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be.” (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010; see also Merwald Real Estate v Lanauze DC Auckland, MA151-89, 2 May 1989).
- Here I accept the tenant’s evidence that they have notified, mostly orally, the landlord on various issues with the property. The landlord was also deemed to have been aware of the state of disrepair of several items at the start of the tenancy after the landlord’s letting agent recorded them on the 17 November 2022 inspection report.
- Compensation ought to be awarded for breach of the landlord’s obligations and where the other party has suffered a loss or inconvenience because of that breach.
- The landlord has received rent from the tenant and is expected to provide accommodation which is suitable to be enjoyed by the tenant in consideration of payment of rent.
- I award the tenant compensation for the inconvenience suffered by the tenant as set out in the above table.
- There were unfixed gaps in windows, causing draughts. The oven door did not close fully, and the cooking hobs thermostat was faulty. There was no working rangehood in the kitchen. There was inadequate moisture barrier under the property. The fireplace was faulty due to broken baffles rendering the fireplace not fully effective in heating the house in cold Cromwell winters.
- The quantum of compensation awarded are directed towards the inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenant for the unrectified items throughout the tenancy.
- The award of $9,000 calculated is based on $60 rent rebate per week for the 150 weeks’ tenancy; tenants are entitled to chattels and building elements in good working order throughout the entire tenancy.
- The amounts awarded as set out in the above table are proved.
- The landlord did not appoint a local property manager and agent to manage her property. The failure to maintain the premises adequately means that the landlord have committed an unlawful act under section 45(1A) RTA.
- 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.
- By failing to appoint a suitable agent to look after their property, including the times that the landlord is overseas, I consider that the landlord has committed the unlawful act of failure to maintain intentionally.
- Having regard to the effect of the unlawful act on the tenant, the interests of the tenant to live in a property that is well maintained, and the public interest that landlords actively maintain their property properly, I am satisfied that it is just to award exemplary damages of $1,500 (out of the maximum of $7,200) in favour of the tenant.
- The tenant is largely successful in the claim. I award the reimbursement of the filing fee and order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.