What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5439437 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 5439437?

Compensation: $1,380.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,950.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5439437?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5439437?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13642874-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5439437 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 5439437?

Compensation: $1,380.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,950.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5439437?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5439437?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13642874-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

44B Lilburn Crescent, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5439437 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5439437 — net $3,358.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,380.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages: Section 45	$1,950.00	Section 45
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,358.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,358.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Goodwin Realty Limited As Agent For Yudhvirsingh Atarsingh And Ami Suthar must pay [The tenant/s] $3,358.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 22 May 2026.
The tenancy commenced on 3 December 2022 and ended on 10 October 2025.
The tenant has applied for a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards, for compensation and for exemplary damages. Healthy Homes standards
The tenant claims that the premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes standards due to issues such as ongoing flooding, rattling windows, gaps in doors, a non-functioning extractor fan in the bathroom and a rumbling extractor fan above the stove.
The landlord produced a Healthy Homes report dated 7 December 2020. That report states that the premises were compliant in relation to the standards, except for the rangehood not venting to the outdoors. The landlord said that this was addressed before the tenancy began and an invoice was produced dated 16 November 2021.
The issues raised by the tenant are more in relation to the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises rather than compliance with the Healthy Homes standards. The claims will therefore be considered in relation to section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Failure to maintain
The premises were affected by the January 2023 floods where there was water ingress in the ground floor rumpus room and the adjoining space under the house. The tenant reported the issue to the landlord and provided both photographs and videos of the water ingress.
The photographs and videos show damaged belongings, wet carpet, water pooling on the concrete floor of the adjoining space and mould growth.
On 1 February 2023 the landlord emailed the tenant asking if they were happy for the landlord to send a flood restoration team. The tenant confirmed that they were happy for that to happen.
The tenant said that the flooding continued beyond January 2023. The photographs produced by the tenant shows flooding in January 2023, February 2023 and May 2023.
The tenant said that multiple contractors attended to look at the rumpus room area, but the landlord has not provided any reports from that period. Some marks had been placed on walls to indicate that they needed replacing. There was no restoration carried out in the area so that the wet carpet was never commercially dried (the tenants used their own dehumidifier) and the wet skirting boards and walls were not removed to allow drying and to prevent mould growing. The tenants produced photographs showing mould was present.
The tenants reported that some of their belongings were damaged and needed to be disposed of, but they did not make an insurance claim and there is no list of the items damaged. The tenant’s evidence is that they moved some items to storage which they have continued to pay for. There is no evidence of what they needed to move to storage.
The landlord said that the owner put in an insurance claim which was declined. Apparently, it was declined due to the drainage but there is no clear evidence to support this. The landlord’s failure to supply this evidence may suggest that this was an ongoing issue that was present at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord arranged for new drainage to be installed in March 2024, more than a year after the first flooding. The invoice dated 18 March 2024 notes, “this should collect most of the water from the back yard area and stop it from entering under the house, however this will not catch any ground water.”
The tenants report that there had also been water pooling due to issues with the guttering and spouting. In the ingoing inspection dated 1 December 2022 the tenants have noted, “...leaking from gutter in front of stairs.” Two photographs were added to the report showing a hole in the guttering and signs on the concrete and grass beneath that there had been excess water in that area.
The tenant produced photographs showing water pouring out the hole in the guttering at the front of the house in January 2023. The tenant had sent a video to the landlord in December 2022 showing the leak. The landlord produced an invoice dated 26 January 2023 for the repair. The landlord response to this issue was within a reasonable timeframe.
The gutter issue identified by the tenants in the ingoing report was not address when photographs were taken of the area above the steps in September 2023, May 2024 and September 2024. The landlord produced an invoice dated 9 January 2025 showing that this was repaired over two years after it was first reported. This was not addressed by the landlord within a reasonable timeframe.
The tenants identified other maintenance issues including a bedroom window reported early in the tenancy but not fixed until September 2025. There were issues with kitchen drawers and pantry, bathroom extractor fan that stopped working, carpet tacks sticking out and a gap between the downstairs sliding door and window (mentioned in ingoing report).
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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.
The landlord has failed to maintain the premises in a timely manner particularly in relation to the flood damage, the gutter above the stairs, the bedroom window and the gap in the ranch slider to the rumpus room. 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 tenant had advised the landlord of the issues including providing photographs and videos. The tenants continued to live in premises which were flood damaged and no flood restoration was carried out. The tenants had the effects of ongoing maintenance issues which either were not addressed adequately or took too long to address. These are issues that the landlord was aware of.
It is in the public interest for landlords to comply with their obligation to maintain premises during a tenancy.
I consider an award of $1,950.00 for exemplary damages is reasonable after taking account of the evidence produced. Compensation
The tenant claims compensation to cover the storage cost of $7,510.00.
Soon after the flooding the tenant had asked for a rent reduction, and this was agreed to at $40.00 per week. That reduction was backdated to 18 February 2023 and continued to the end of the tenancy. I note that the landlord had increased the rent on two occasions during the three-year tenancy and is entitled to do so. While the tenant argues that this negated the rent rebate the other way to look at it is that the rent would have otherwise increased to $675.00 (instead of $635.00) in February 2024 and $690.00 (instead of $650.00) in August 2025 if it were not for the rent reduction.
I have calculated the rent reduction of $40.00 per week over the period from 18 February 2023 until 10 October 2025 (138 weeks) to be $5,520.00. I have taken that figure into account when determining the tenant’s claim for compensation.
The compensation amount awarded is $1,380.00 which is equivalent to $50.00 per week (when added to the rent reduction already received). That amount is to go toward the some of the storage cost and the extra costs the tenant faced such as power running the dehumidifier.
I have not awarded the full storage cost because there was insufficient evidence of what needed to be stored.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason the tenant’s names are suppressed as sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5439437 — net $3,358.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,380.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages: Section 45	$1,950.00	Section 45
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,358.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,358.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Goodwin Realty Limited As Agent For Yudhvirsingh Atarsingh And Ami Suthar must pay [The tenant/s] $3,358.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 22 May 2026.
The tenancy commenced on 3 December 2022 and ended on 10 October 2025.
The tenant has applied for a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards, for compensation and for exemplary damages. Healthy Homes standards
The tenant claims that the premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes standards due to issues such as ongoing flooding, rattling windows, gaps in doors, a non-functioning extractor fan in the bathroom and a rumbling extractor fan above the stove.
The landlord produced a Healthy Homes report dated 7 December 2020. That report states that the premises were compliant in relation to the standards, except for the rangehood not venting to the outdoors. The landlord said that this was addressed before the tenancy began and an invoice was produced dated 16 November 2021.
The issues raised by the tenant are more in relation to the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises rather than compliance with the Healthy Homes standards. The claims will therefore be considered in relation to section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Failure to maintain
The premises were affected by the January 2023 floods where there was water ingress in the ground floor rumpus room and the adjoining space under the house. The tenant reported the issue to the landlord and provided both photographs and videos of the water ingress.
The photographs and videos show damaged belongings, wet carpet, water pooling on the concrete floor of the adjoining space and mould growth.
On 1 February 2023 the landlord emailed the tenant asking if they were happy for the landlord to send a flood restoration team. The tenant confirmed that they were happy for that to happen.
The tenant said that the flooding continued beyond January 2023. The photographs produced by the tenant shows flooding in January 2023, February 2023 and May 2023.
The tenant said that multiple contractors attended to look at the rumpus room area, but the landlord has not provided any reports from that period. Some marks had been placed on walls to indicate that they needed replacing. There was no restoration carried out in the area so that the wet carpet was never commercially dried (the tenants used their own dehumidifier) and the wet skirting boards and walls were not removed to allow drying and to prevent mould growing. The tenants produced photographs showing mould was present.
The tenants reported that some of their belongings were damaged and needed to be disposed of, but they did not make an insurance claim and there is no list of the items damaged. The tenant’s evidence is that they moved some items to storage which they have continued to pay for. There is no evidence of what they needed to move to storage.
The landlord said that the owner put in an insurance claim which was declined. Apparently, it was declined due to the drainage but there is no clear evidence to support this. The landlord’s failure to supply this evidence may suggest that this was an ongoing issue that was present at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord arranged for new drainage to be installed in March 2024, more than a year after the first flooding. The invoice dated 18 March 2024 notes, “this should collect most of the water from the back yard area and stop it from entering under the house, however this will not catch any ground water.”
The tenants report that there had also been water pooling due to issues with the guttering and spouting. In the ingoing inspection dated 1 December 2022 the tenants have noted, “...leaking from gutter in front of stairs.” Two photographs were added to the report showing a hole in the guttering and signs on the concrete and grass beneath that there had been excess water in that area.
The tenant produced photographs showing water pouring out the hole in the guttering at the front of the house in January 2023. The tenant had sent a video to the landlord in December 2022 showing the leak. The landlord produced an invoice dated 26 January 2023 for the repair. The landlord response to this issue was within a reasonable timeframe.
The gutter issue identified by the tenants in the ingoing report was not address when photographs were taken of the area above the steps in September 2023, May 2024 and September 2024. The landlord produced an invoice dated 9 January 2025 showing that this was repaired over two years after it was first reported. This was not addressed by the landlord within a reasonable timeframe.
The tenants identified other maintenance issues including a bedroom window reported early in the tenancy but not fixed until September 2025. There were issues with kitchen drawers and pantry, bathroom extractor fan that stopped working, carpet tacks sticking out and a gap between the downstairs sliding door and window (mentioned in ingoing report).
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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.
The landlord has failed to maintain the premises in a timely manner particularly in relation to the flood damage, the gutter above the stairs, the bedroom window and the gap in the ranch slider to the rumpus room. 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 tenant had advised the landlord of the issues including providing photographs and videos. The tenants continued to live in premises which were flood damaged and no flood restoration was carried out. The tenants had the effects of ongoing maintenance issues which either were not addressed adequately or took too long to address. These are issues that the landlord was aware of.
It is in the public interest for landlords to comply with their obligation to maintain premises during a tenancy.
I consider an award of $1,950.00 for exemplary damages is reasonable after taking account of the evidence produced. Compensation
The tenant claims compensation to cover the storage cost of $7,510.00.
Soon after the flooding the tenant had asked for a rent reduction, and this was agreed to at $40.00 per week. That reduction was backdated to 18 February 2023 and continued to the end of the tenancy. I note that the landlord had increased the rent on two occasions during the three-year tenancy and is entitled to do so. While the tenant argues that this negated the rent rebate the other way to look at it is that the rent would have otherwise increased to $675.00 (instead of $635.00) in February 2024 and $690.00 (instead of $650.00) in August 2025 if it were not for the rent reduction.
I have calculated the rent reduction of $40.00 per week over the period from 18 February 2023 until 10 October 2025 (138 weeks) to be $5,520.00. I have taken that figure into account when determining the tenant’s claim for compensation.
The compensation amount awarded is $1,380.00 which is equivalent to $50.00 per week (when added to the rent reduction already received). That amount is to go toward the some of the storage cost and the extra costs the tenant faced such as power running the dehumidifier.
I have not awarded the full storage cost because there was insufficient evidence of what needed to be stored.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason the tenant’s names are suppressed as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5439437 — Exemplary damages at 44B Lilburn Crescent, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5439437 — Exemplary damages at 44B Lilburn Crescent, Massey, Auckland 0614

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