What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426177 about?

The tribunal order states: The Landlord must pay the Tenant compensation of $1,845.00 immediately for

How much money was awarded in case 5426177?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426177?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426177?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13802069-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426177 about?

The tribunal order states: The Landlord must pay the Tenant compensation of $1,845.00 immediately for

How much money was awarded in case 5426177?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426177?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426177?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13802069-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

[Address] Tenancy Tribunal Case 5426177 — State of repair

Order

The Landlord must pay the Tenant compensation of $1,845.00 immediately for loss of amenity and utility.
The Landlord must pay the Tenant exemplary damages of $1,000.00 immediately (s 45 – Landlord’s maintenance obligations).
The Landlord must pay the Tenant $28.00 immediately, being the Tenancy Tribunal application filing fee.
All other claims are dismissed.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant] name and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 13 February 2024. The rent was $450.00 per week. The bond paid was $1,800.00.

Did the Landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

The Tenant claims that the Landlord breached their obligations under s 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by placing, or allowing to remain, a damaged house on part of the rented premises from about early January 2025 until the tenancy ended in March 2026.
Under s 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises, and must comply with relevant requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety so far as they apply to the premises.
Breaching those obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tenant says the damaged house occupied part of the outdoor area she rented, was unsightly, unsafe, and prevented her and her family from using that part of the property. Further, there were debris – broken concrete and other remnants – from a garage demolition. The garage had been destroyed to make way for the house.
The Tenant says she continued to pay full rent despite having reduced use of the premises. Her kids had played in and around the garage before its removal, and now there was a house on top of barrels which moved (vibrated) in wet and windy weather. She said she had videos of this, but not at the hearing.
At the start of the tenancy the Landlord told the Tenant that another house would be moved onto the property at some point. However, the evidence does not show that the parties agreed the specific location, the amount of land to be affected, the duration of the interference, or that the damaged house would remain in an incomplete state for over a year. The Landlord indicated a new driveway would be laid, but this never eventuated.
It is clear to me the Tenant would never have agreed to an indefinite reduction in the amenity and utility of the rented premises without consideration for her loss.
I accept the damaged house was placed on part of the property in about the first week of January 2025. The garage was removed on or about 11 December 2024. The house and former garage site was an eyesore. It occupied a meaningful part of the outdoor area. The area was unsafe, but it was hard to objectively establish how unsafe the area was as the Tenant’s evidence was imprecise in this regard. If it had been so unsafe, I would have expected the Tenant to notify the Landlord of her concerns promptly, and although the Tenant said she told the Landlord many times of her concerns, her evidence lacked specificity, and there was nothing in the way of contemporaneous documenting of her concerns.
There was no expert evidence about structural risk, and the evidence does not allow a precise calculation of the amount of land affected or the exact level of risk.
I accept that the Landlord was not indifferent to the tenancy. The evidence shows the Landlord intended to carry out work and there were attempts to progress matters – the Landlord fixed a ranchslider lock and installed a mailbox during the tenancy – but they were reliant on a house moving company and the local council. I also accept that the Landlord or property manager were trying to manage a genuinely difficult development situation, and the Landlord did not authorise moving the house onto the site before subdivision consent had granted.
However, as I explained to the Tenant, the social cost of the delay should not fall on the Tenant and there is no evidence that the Tenant was offered any rent relief, abatement or discount at any time during the tenancy. The Tenant paid rent for the whole property and received less than the whole benefit of the tenancy.
I find the Landlord breached s 45 by failing to maintain the rented premises, including the affected outdoor area, in a reasonable state and by allowing the damaged house and associated disruption to remain for an unreasonable period. I find that breach was 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 s 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied exemplary damages should be awarded. The Landlord’s conduct caused loss of amenity and inconvenience. The Landlord did not deliberately set out to deprive the Tenant of part of her property, but the Landlord did intend to bring about the development project which ultimately caused the Tenant’s loss for an extended period of time. There is a need to deter Landlords from undertaking such works without giving sufficient, forward consideration to how they will manage their tenancy obligations when delays and disruption occur or compensate their tenants.
I award $1,000.00 in exemplary damages under this head.

Did the Landlord harass the Tenant or breach her quiet enjoyment?

The Tenant also claims the Landlord harassed her.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in the tenant’s use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching that obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Harassment means “to trouble, worry or distress” or “to wear out, tire, or exhaust” and indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person. MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The Tenant referred to an incident on 4 March 2026 involving the property manager entering the property and yelling at her. The Tenant also says there were failures to respond to emails and failures to give information. I accept the relationship between the Tenant and property manager deteriorated. However, I am unable to conclude on the evidence provided that the 4 March incident occurred in the manner described. The property manager denies entering the property and yelling at the tenant.
The evidence does not establish a pattern of conduct amounting to harassment under section 38(3). I therefore dismiss the claim for exemplary damages for harassment.

Is the Landlord liable to compensate the Tenant for her loss of utility and/or amenity?

I have considered compensation for loss of amenity and utility. This is the real substance of the claim. The Tenant did not receive the full use and benefit of the premises for which she was paying $450.00 per week.
I have taken a staged approach because the impact was not the same throughout the whole period.
For the period from about early January 2025 until about the end of April 2025, I assess the loss of amenity at about 10% of rent. This was the initial period when the damaged house had recently been placed on the property and before the Tenant had given notice to leave. For about 16 weeks, that gives approximately $720.00.
From about May 2025, the Tenant had given notice to leave but did not vacate. I accept the Tenant had personal setbacks and difficulty securing alternative accommodation. However, not all of those matters were reasonably foreseeable to the Landlord. Under section 49, a party must take reasonable steps to limit loss. I therefore assess the loss at a lower rate after that point. The Tenant still suffered reduced amenity, but it is not fair to assess the later period at the same rate as the earlier period.
For the period from about May 2025 to late November 2025, I assess the loss at about 5% of rent. For about 30 weeks, that gives approximately $675.00.
I accept there was a further period in December 2025 when contractors were on site for about two weeks. That period was more disruptive. For those two weeks I assess the loss at about 20% of rent, giving approximately $180.00.
For the balance of the tenancy, from after the December contractor period until the Tenant vacated on or about 10 March 2026, I assess the loss at about 5% of rent. For about 12 weeks, that gives approximately $270.00.
These figures total approximately $1,845.00. The evidence does not allow me to make precise findings about exact dates or percentages, but it does support a meaningful award for reduced amenity and utility.
The Tenant’s claim for vehicle damage is dismissed. There is insufficient evidence proving what damage occurred, the cost of repair, and that the damage was caused by a breach by the Landlord.
The Tenant has substantially succeeded with her claim. I award her filing fee of $28.00 and grant suppression of her name and identifying details.

Order

The Landlord must pay the Tenant compensation of $1,845.00 immediately for loss of amenity and utility.
The Landlord must pay the Tenant exemplary damages of $1,000.00 immediately (s 45 – Landlord’s maintenance obligations).
The Landlord must pay the Tenant $28.00 immediately, being the Tenancy Tribunal application filing fee.
All other claims are dismissed.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant] name and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 13 February 2024. The rent was $450.00 per week. The bond paid was $1,800.00.

Did the Landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

The Tenant claims that the Landlord breached their obligations under s 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by placing, or allowing to remain, a damaged house on part of the rented premises from about early January 2025 until the tenancy ended in March 2026.
Under s 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises, and must comply with relevant requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety so far as they apply to the premises.
Breaching those obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tenant says the damaged house occupied part of the outdoor area she rented, was unsightly, unsafe, and prevented her and her family from using that part of the property. Further, there were debris – broken concrete and other remnants – from a garage demolition. The garage had been destroyed to make way for the house.
The Tenant says she continued to pay full rent despite having reduced use of the premises. Her kids had played in and around the garage before its removal, and now there was a house on top of barrels which moved (vibrated) in wet and windy weather. She said she had videos of this, but not at the hearing.
At the start of the tenancy the Landlord told the Tenant that another house would be moved onto the property at some point. However, the evidence does not show that the parties agreed the specific location, the amount of land to be affected, the duration of the interference, or that the damaged house would remain in an incomplete state for over a year. The Landlord indicated a new driveway would be laid, but this never eventuated.
It is clear to me the Tenant would never have agreed to an indefinite reduction in the amenity and utility of the rented premises without consideration for her loss.
I accept the damaged house was placed on part of the property in about the first week of January 2025. The garage was removed on or about 11 December 2024. The house and former garage site was an eyesore. It occupied a meaningful part of the outdoor area. The area was unsafe, but it was hard to objectively establish how unsafe the area was as the Tenant’s evidence was imprecise in this regard. If it had been so unsafe, I would have expected the Tenant to notify the Landlord of her concerns promptly, and although the Tenant said she told the Landlord many times of her concerns, her evidence lacked specificity, and there was nothing in the way of contemporaneous documenting of her concerns.
There was no expert evidence about structural risk, and the evidence does not allow a precise calculation of the amount of land affected or the exact level of risk.
I accept that the Landlord was not indifferent to the tenancy. The evidence shows the Landlord intended to carry out work and there were attempts to progress matters – the Landlord fixed a ranchslider lock and installed a mailbox during the tenancy – but they were reliant on a house moving company and the local council. I also accept that the Landlord or property manager were trying to manage a genuinely difficult development situation, and the Landlord did not authorise moving the house onto the site before subdivision consent had granted.
However, as I explained to the Tenant, the social cost of the delay should not fall on the Tenant and there is no evidence that the Tenant was offered any rent relief, abatement or discount at any time during the tenancy. The Tenant paid rent for the whole property and received less than the whole benefit of the tenancy.
I find the Landlord breached s 45 by failing to maintain the rented premises, including the affected outdoor area, in a reasonable state and by allowing the damaged house and associated disruption to remain for an unreasonable period. I find that breach was 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 s 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied exemplary damages should be awarded. The Landlord’s conduct caused loss of amenity and inconvenience. The Landlord did not deliberately set out to deprive the Tenant of part of her property, but the Landlord did intend to bring about the development project which ultimately caused the Tenant’s loss for an extended period of time. There is a need to deter Landlords from undertaking such works without giving sufficient, forward consideration to how they will manage their tenancy obligations when delays and disruption occur or compensate their tenants.
I award $1,000.00 in exemplary damages under this head.

Did the Landlord harass the Tenant or breach her quiet enjoyment?

The Tenant also claims the Landlord harassed her.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in the tenant’s use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching that obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Harassment means “to trouble, worry or distress” or “to wear out, tire, or exhaust” and indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person. MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The Tenant referred to an incident on 4 March 2026 involving the property manager entering the property and yelling at her. The Tenant also says there were failures to respond to emails and failures to give information. I accept the relationship between the Tenant and property manager deteriorated. However, I am unable to conclude on the evidence provided that the 4 March incident occurred in the manner described. The property manager denies entering the property and yelling at the tenant.
The evidence does not establish a pattern of conduct amounting to harassment under section 38(3). I therefore dismiss the claim for exemplary damages for harassment.

Is the Landlord liable to compensate the Tenant for her loss of utility and/or amenity?

I have considered compensation for loss of amenity and utility. This is the real substance of the claim. The Tenant did not receive the full use and benefit of the premises for which she was paying $450.00 per week.
I have taken a staged approach because the impact was not the same throughout the whole period.
For the period from about early January 2025 until about the end of April 2025, I assess the loss of amenity at about 10% of rent. This was the initial period when the damaged house had recently been placed on the property and before the Tenant had given notice to leave. For about 16 weeks, that gives approximately $720.00.
From about May 2025, the Tenant had given notice to leave but did not vacate. I accept the Tenant had personal setbacks and difficulty securing alternative accommodation. However, not all of those matters were reasonably foreseeable to the Landlord. Under section 49, a party must take reasonable steps to limit loss. I therefore assess the loss at a lower rate after that point. The Tenant still suffered reduced amenity, but it is not fair to assess the later period at the same rate as the earlier period.
For the period from about May 2025 to late November 2025, I assess the loss at about 5% of rent. For about 30 weeks, that gives approximately $675.00.
I accept there was a further period in December 2025 when contractors were on site for about two weeks. That period was more disruptive. For those two weeks I assess the loss at about 20% of rent, giving approximately $180.00.
For the balance of the tenancy, from after the December contractor period until the Tenant vacated on or about 10 March 2026, I assess the loss at about 5% of rent. For about 12 weeks, that gives approximately $270.00.
These figures total approximately $1,845.00. The evidence does not allow me to make precise findings about exact dates or percentages, but it does support a meaningful award for reduced amenity and utility.
The Tenant’s claim for vehicle damage is dismissed. There is insufficient evidence proving what damage occurred, the cost of repair, and that the damage was caused by a breach by the Landlord.
The Tenant has substantially succeeded with her claim. I award her filing fee of $28.00 and grant suppression of her name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426177 — State of repair at [Address]

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426177 — State of repair at [Address]

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the Landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Did the Landlord harass the Tenant or breach her quiet enjoyment?

Is the Landlord liable to compensate the Tenant for her loss of utility and/or amenity?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Did the Landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Did the Landlord harass the Tenant or breach her quiet enjoyment?

Is the Landlord liable to compensate the Tenant for her loss of utility and/or amenity?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions