Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5427901 — Tenancy dispute at 18 Silver Street, Lower Shotover, Queenstown 9304
Decided 30 Apr 2026 · Published 30 Apr 2026 · Application 5427901
- Cleanliness
- Exemplary damages
- Leaks
- Property damage
- State of repair
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants names and identifying details 2.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference.
- The parties entered into a fixed term tenancy agreement for a term from 30 May 2025 to 30 May 2026. DescriptionLandlordTenant Compensation: loss of amenity – dishwasher Compensation washing machine and fridge seal installation cost $280.00 $462.20 Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total award $770.20 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $770.20 Claims
- Mostly because of concerns about the safety of the kitchen floor surface, the tenants brought an application for an Order ending the tenancy before expiry of the fixed term. That application was not pursued at the hearing.
- The tenants also seek compensation for lack of use of the dishwasher, the cost of having replacement fridge and washing machine seals installed and for having to live with the slippery kitchen floor. Relevant Law
- A landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 1
- That applies also to chattels provided as part of the agreement. Dishwasher
- The agreement specifies that a dishwasher is provided as part of the tenancy.
- The dishwasher failed. A replacement the landlords ordered was damaged during installation, before another was installed.
- The result was that the tenants were without use of a dishwasher for around 4 weeks.
- The landlords emphasise that they did all they could to have the dishwasher replaced and were not at fault for the delays. I accept that.
- However it is not really a question of fault (as it might be if an award of exemplary damages was being considered). Tenants are not relieved of the obligation to pay rent when the failure to do so may be through no fault of theirs. The same applies to landlord’s obligations. 13Simply, the question is whether, for that period, the landlords did not meet their obligation to provide the tenants with a dishwasher as the agreement obliged them to, meaning that the tenants tenant were paying 100% of the rent, but were not receiving 100% of the amenity of the premises.
- I find that they were and that they should be compensated. I assess compensation at $70.00 per week x 4 weeks Fridge and Washing machine 1 S.45(1)(b) RTA
- These were also chattels agreed to be provided with the tenancy.
- During an inspection the landlord noticed that a seal on the bottom of the fringe door had failed or been damaged. The seal on the washing machine was leaking.
- The landlord arranged for replacement seals to be provided. The tenants paid for the installation and seek compensation for the installation costs.
- The evidence does not prove that the need for those seals to be replaced was other than through normal wear and tear or, if not, that it resulted from any damage caused during this tenancy. That onus to provide that proof is on the landlords. 2
- That being so, the landlords are responsible for the repair costs, including installation. The tenants should be compensation for the installation costs they paid, proved by the invoice provided. Floor
- The floor in question is the wooden flooring in the kitchen.
- On 9 October 2025 in a letter to the landlords the tenants said: “The kitchen floor is dangerously slippery. Tzrina’s 82 year old father has fallen, my 72 year old mother was distressed by it and several guests have slipped as well. It presents a genuine hazard and needs urgent attention to ensure safety for all occupants and visitors.”
- The landlords immediately obtained advice on cleaning the floor which they passed on to the tenants. They also contacted a flooring specialist to inspect and assess the floor.
- A copy of that assessment is not in evidence. The landlord’s say that commercial cleaning of the floor was recommended. That information was passed on to the tenants. On 20 October, Ms Smith said in an e-mail to the landlords, “I think its worth you paying someone to professionally clean it (that uses a proper cleaning machine). We have had multiple people fall over now so its becoming quite a health and safety issue.”
- The landlords arranged for the floors to be cleaned by Chem Dry. That was done on 28 October.
- The landlords passed on to the tenants what they say were recommendations from Chem Dry about possible causes for slipperiness and recommended cleaning practices. The recommendations themselves are not in evidence. 2 S.49B RTA
- On 5 November 2025 the tenants responded, disputing that the matters in the landlord’s recommendations were the cause of the floor’s slipperiness, noting the view that the slipperiness was caused through wear of the surface and that, “The floor may need a proper polyurethane coating or similar seal to restore and improve the surface quality and improve grip. That would be something for you to consider down the track but were not asking for it to be done. Thanks for you attention to the matter. We’ll continue to manage with it as it is.”
- On 7 November the landlords offered to have the floors sanded while the tenants were away on holiday but the tenants had guests staying and declined the offer.
- The landlords then bought an anti-slip mat for the area in front of the sliding doors – though that is not the part of the floor the tenants were most concerned about. Findings
- I do not doubt the tenants experience of having to take care with the slipperiness of the kitchen floor and their concern about it. The landlords’ suggestion that the issue was “made up” by the tenants to try and negotiate a rent reduction is insulting and not at all supported by the evidence.
- The photographs showing what appears to be sun damage to the floor surface and the length of time since the floor was resurfaced 3 suggest that a resurfacing will be required to keep the floor adequately maintained.
- This is the tenants’ claim so the obligation is on them to provide evidence to prove, on balance, a breach of the landlords’ obligations and the extent of any loss caused by that breach.
- The tenants point to the landlords’ 5 December 2025 inspection report as an acknowledgment of the extent of the problem. However I read the landlords’ remarks in that report as more aimed at concerns about scratches on the floor.
- The tenants also refer to a quote from Install-A-Floor, giving prices to sand and polyurethane or deep clean, prime and polyurethane the floor, to make it less slippery. That was the purpose of the work for which the quote was obtained. I do not read it is a professional assessment that the floor was dangerously slippery.
- There is no independent expert assessment of that nature in the evidence. 3 Online sources suggest an annual light sand and polyurethane recoat, full sand and refinish every 7-10 years with indicators of the need tor resurfacing being high traffic areas eg hallways or near kitchen sink or faded patched from sun exposure.
- The Tribunal also needs to take into account the tenants’ obligation, as claimants, to take all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss they are claiming condensation for. 4
- Saying to the landlord that, “..we are not asking for [recoating] to be done” and “We’ll continue to manage with it as it is”, is not consistent with that obligation.
- Nor is declining the landlords’ offer to have the floor sanded. While the time first suggested may not have been suitable, there is no evidence of efforts to find another, more suitable time. Given that it is the tenants who seek compensation, there was some onus on them to try and facilitate a remedy to the problem.
- For those reasons, and without evidence of loss beyond what I accept will have been an inconvenience and cause of worry for the tenants, I do not find the tenants’ claim for compensation proved.
- The tenants have had claims upheld and I order reimbursement of their filing fee.