What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5447949 about?

The tribunal order states: Narwada Devi Singh must pay Vanita Katarina Wijohn $2,100.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5447949?

Compensation: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5447949?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5447949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13823817-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5447949 about?

The tribunal order states: Narwada Devi Singh must pay Vanita Katarina Wijohn $2,100.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5447949?

Compensation: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5447949?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5447949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13823817-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

51 Bahari Drive, Ranui, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5447949 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5447949 — net $2,100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Electricity compensation	$300.00	Electricity compensation
Oven compensation	$300.00	Oven compensation
Exemplary damages: Rubbish	$1,000.00	Rubbish
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Net award	$2,100.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,100.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5447949 — net $2,100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Electricity compensation	$300.00	Electricity compensation
Oven compensation	$300.00	Oven compensation
Exemplary damages: Rubbish	$1,000.00	Rubbish
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Net award	$2,100.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,100.00

Order

Narwada Devi Singh must pay Vanita Katarina Wijohn $2,100.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionTenant Electricity compensation$300.00 Oven compensation$300.00 Exemplary damages: Rubbish$1,000.00 Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond$500.00 Total award$2,100.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$2,100.00
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant .
Both parties appeared at the hearing today.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 13 August 2025. The landlord is Narwada Devi Singh and the tenant Vanita Wijohn.
As will be discussed further below, during the tenancy a range of issues arose with the dwelling.
On 8 February 2026, the landlord wrote to the tenant advising that they did not consider that the dwelling was healthy or safe to live in given various issues raised by the tenant. The landlord noted the tenant’s concerns around water leakage in the bathroom and floor damage, and as they did not know how long the repairs would take, that the tenant should find somewhere else to live. The landlord gave a 14 day notice.
In an email from 11 February 2026, the tenant opposed the notice as retaliatory.
One of the issues with the premises was a leak in the bathroom, which has caused rotting to the floor. The landlord instructed a plumber to attend. In an email from 12 February 2026, Mark Fittall reports that they found a leak to the side of the bath, and a small leak on the waste (but did not describe that further such as location), but reported that they were unable to carry out any repairs until the flooring had been assessed and repaired, and confirmed that it would be safe to walk on. The Plumber provided photographs showing the situation under the house.
There was also a separate issue where the tenant put her foot through the floor at the back door.
On 8 May 2026, the Builder emailed the tenant advising that the premises needed to be fully vacated for the “upcoming renovation work”, which included the bathroom and all flooring. The builder estimated that the work would take some three weeks.
The tenant responded advising that she could place some belongings in another room, but that the landlord would need to assist with an alternate dwelling.
Landlord replied advising that the builders were available from 16 May and that she would be able to return to the property on 6 June 2026.
I note that during the tenancy the landlord offerred the tenant to move into a neighbouring house (owned by the landlord), but there were issues with that property, and the move did not progress.
In short, the parties could not agree on a solution to have the premises vacated for the works. The landlord wanted the tenant to vacate the premises so the work could be completed, whereas the tenant wished to stay in the premises.
On 17 May 2026, the landlord issued a notice to the tenant, advising that the fixed-term tenancy would not be extended beyond the fixed term expiry on 13 August 2026.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Exemplary damages
The Tribunal must consider a claims for exemplary damages. I will summarise the legal considerations now.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.

ANALYSIS

I will now consider the parties’ claims in turn. Tenants claims Claim 1 – Breach of the landlord's obligations under section 45
The tenant states that the landlord has failed to comply with various obligations under section 45. Analysis
Section 45 sets out the landlords responsibilities and that include the following obligations: a. To provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy; b. To provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the agent character of the premises, and the period during which they would likely be used for residential purposes. c. Comply with all requirements and respective buildings, health, and safety.
In this case, the tenant has raised a number of issues where she says the landlord has not complied with these obligations. Electricity
The tenant states that when she moved in there was no power. Because the power had been off some time prior to the tenancy starting, she could not have the power connected without it being assessed by an electrician. That took 5 days before power was connected.
In response, the landlord said that they did not know about the issue with the inability to connect the power, so a $20 reduction in rent was applied for one week.
The evidence is that, at the start of the tenancy, the tenant was unable to have the electricity supply connected, because the electricity had been off for so long. It needed to be checked by an electrician before the supplier would liven in the house. The tenant raised that with the landlord on 13 August 2025, but a certificate of verification was not provided by the Electrical inspector until 18 August 2025.
The evidence is that a $20 reduction in rent was provided.
I have no doubt, that there is an obligation on landlords who rent premises that electricity can be connected. There are a range of obligations that the landlord has, such as for example, providing heating and ventilation, and it must stand to reason that in order for those services to be provided, electricity is needed. Electricity is also required for lighting and cooking, basic expectations in a residential dwelling. I consider it would be an implied term of the contract that power could be connected without delay.
While I would accept that the landlord was not aware of the issue, and could not have predicted the delay in getting the electricity connected, the fact is that because of matters outside of the tenant’s control, the property could not receive electricity after the tenancy agreement was signed. The landlord should have provided premises that could be liven at the time the tenancy commenced, the landlord failed to do that.
I am not of the view that exemplary damages should be ordered for the breach, because, as I noted above, I am not convinced the landlord was aware of it. Exemplary damages can only be ordered for intentional breaches.
But I do consider that a $20 rent reduction is significantly short. Taking into consideration the tenant was without power for one week, I consider a more reasonable level of compensation would be $300.00 which would more realistically compensate for the loss of amenity, and inconvenience to the tenant. I order an additional $300.00 to be paid. Oven
The tenant further states that there was an issue with the oven at the start of the tenancy. Once the power was reconnected, they found the oven was not working, only one element worked. The tenant said that she was without an oven for 29 days. The tenant purchased an oven for $100, but that was not reimbursed by the landlord.
The landlord states that at the start of the tenancy the oven was fully functioning. This was a year prior to this tenancy starting given the premises were empty for about a year. The landord states that did not know if the tenant had damaged the oven, the landlord was not given a chance to inspect the oven, and there was no chance to remedy or repair the issue, the tenant just purchased a new oven and told the landlord to rewire it.
The file includes a text message from 10 September where the tenant advised the landlord that she had obtained an oven from TradeMe, and that it needed to be installed.
The tenant’s evidence is that once the electricity was live and, she found that the oven was not working. This was raised with the landlord then.
The premises had an oven when it was rented, that oven should have worked. Failing to provide an oven would be deemed a breach of contract. There are also legal obligations on a landlord to provide a stove or similar, to allow food to be cooked.
Plainly a tenant should not have to replace items like ovens. Again, the tenant was not receiving what she was paying rent for, that was a property with a working oven. The evidence is that the tenant paid $100 for the replacement oven, she should be compensated for that, as well as the loss of amenity that would have gone with not having an oven for the first month of the tenancy. I consider that a reasonable level of compensation for that situation would be $200.00, I therefore order the landlord to compensate the tenant $300.00, that is the replacement cost for the oven, plus inconvenience and loss of amenity. Rubbish removal
The tenant says that when the tenancy started, there was extensive rubbish outside the house. The tenant filled a skip bin with rubbish, which was provided by the landlord.
The landlord agrees there was a skip bin purchased for the property, because the tenant wanted to move in right away, and the landlord had organised someone to undertake the cleaning. However this tenant did not want to delay the tenancy so it was agreed that the tenant would do that work.
The evidence is plainly that there was rubbish on the premises. The landlord acknowledged providing a skip bin for the tenant to put rubbish into. The landlord indicated that the tenant wanted the premises before the necessary work had been completed. That is not a defence. The RTA requires that a landlord provide the premises reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy, not at some stage following.
I am satisfied that exemplary damages should be awarded. It is more likely than not that the landlord was aware of the rubbish on the premises; it is also most likely that the landlord would have been aware of her legal obligations. There is no evidence to the contrary. The impact for the tenant was that she had premises that had rubbish around it, and she needed to deal with the rubbish, which the landlord should have done. There are strong interests for tenants to have premises that are clean and free of rubbish, which is also a general public interest. I consider it would be just to make an order of exemplary damages.
The maximum level of exemplary damages for a landlord failing to comply with its obligations under section 45, is $7,200.00. In this case, I consider an order of $1,000.00 would be reasonable and proportionate, that is ordered. Maintenance / holes in floor
I will address all claims around maintenance and holes in the floor, together.
The tenant states that the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state or repair. During the tenancy she put her foot through the floor around the back door. When this was raised with the landlord, she did not make any effort to fix this, she just referred it to insurance. This occurred on 7 January 2026, and the hole has not been fixed. The tenant put a board over the hole.
The landlord states that a claim was raised with the insurance company. The landlord states that the builder required that the premises be vacant in order to do this repair. The tenant refused to vacate the premises so the premises could not be repaired. The landlord states the premises were fine before the tenant moved in to the premises.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. On 25 January the tenant notified the landlord about water coming into the house. The tenant considers the water is coming in with strong winds.
The landlord states that the premises are HHS compliant. Again the landlord states that the premises needed to be vacated in order to do the work. The landlord considers that the door frame has been broken by the tenant.
The tenant states that the landlord has not provided a house which avoids pests from coming inside. T
The landlord states that the hole referred to by the tenant was not present at the start of the tenancy, and there were no pests at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant states that she raised water leaking under the house, on 7 January 2026, which was a large puddle in the front yard. The landlord arranged for a plumber to come on 12 January 2026, but given the situation with the flooring, the plumber would not come to the premises to undertake the work. The tenant states the plumber said the water is coming from around the bath, and she has been unable to use that facility since 7 January. The landlord has not repaired this leak.
Again, the landlord refers to the tenant needing to vacate the premises for this work to be completed.
The tenant said that on 3 February 2026, the landlord offered that she could move into the property at the back of the house, being 53B. The house was dirty and had rubbish on the premises. The landlord offered $200 for the tenant to clean the house, but the tenant declined this. Someone came within the week for the landlord to do that work, but later the landlord said that the back property would not be ready for her to move in. The tenant said that her offer to occupy the back section lasted 3 days before it was withdrawn. The tenant considers this house was withdrawn when she would not clean this up.
The landlord agrees that the property was not ready to be rented at the back, and it was a generous offer for the tenant in the circumstances.
The tenant states that on 8 February 2026, the landlord wrongly gave a 14 day termination notice in order to undertake the repairs to the house. The tenant states that the landlord should have rented her 51B.
The landlord states that under section 59 the premises were found to be uninhabitable being the basis to end this tenancy.
In terms of these combined matters, the obligation to maintain the premises is on the landlord. The landlord must provide the premises at the start of the tenancy properly maintained. Based on the information I have available, I am not in a position to conclude that the landlord must have known about the issues with the floor, and the leak in the bathroom. It is conceivable that if the property was vacant for about a year, it was only once the tenant moved in, and these problems arose, that the landlord found out about them.
Overall, I am not persuaded that the landlord’s actions were unreasonable. I can see that when the issues were raised, the landlord engaged a plumber and a builder, and the result of that was that significant works were required to address the problems with the floors. The builder advised that he was not able to do that work with the tenant in the property. I can understand, given the extent of the work that would have been necessary, it probably would have been unsafe for the tenants to be living in the property at the same time as the building works.
This situation falls within section 59 of the RTA, which relates to the destruction of premises. Section 59 confirms that when, other than as a result of the breach of the tenancy agreement, the premises are destroyed or seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable, the rental shall abate, and either party can give notice terminating the tenancy.
In this case, I am not persuaded that issues with the floor and the bathroom leaks were a result of a breach on the part of the landlord or tenant. Therefore, section 59 would apply. I can see that the landlord has given notice to the tenant, but she has declined to leave. In those circumstances, it would be manifestly unjust for the Tribunal to order compensation to be provided to the tenant, for the time after which the notice would have required the tenancy to have been returned to the landlord.
Based solely on the fact that the tenant has elected to stay in the premises, when the landlord has made significant efforts to lawfully get the premises vacated, I do not consider it would be equitable to make any orders against the landlord for these maintenance requirements or any lack of amenity as it relates to the dwelling. Healthy Homes Standards
The tenant claims a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards on the basis that water was getting in one of the doors.
Overall, I am not persuaded that a breach has been established of the HHS. There is insufficient evidence identifying the cause of the water ingress. In short, I am not able to determine whether there is some fault with the water removal facilities in the property, like gutters and draining pipes, or whether this is a maintenance issue. In short, I am not able to determine whether there is some fault with the water removal facilities in the property, like gutters and draining pipes, or whether this is a maintenance issue.
I am reminded that the issues with the leak arose around the same time as the issues with the floor, to that extent it would be unreasonable to order compensation, given the landlord has made efforts to have the property vacated, and it was the tenant’s decision to decline to leave.
Even then, to establish a claim for exemplary damages, the tenant would need to show the landlords actions were intentional, she has not proven that. Claim 2 – Termination notice
As I indicated above, it is open to a landlord to terminate a tenancy under section 59, when the premises are destroyed or uninhabitable. Taking into consideration the situation of the floor, that must be the case here. The landlord gave a 14-day notice on 8 February 2026. It is the case that when a notice is given under section 59, only seven days’ notice was required; there is no problem with the landlord giving more notice than would strictly be required.
Ultimately, they notice is not retaliatory; it was a notice given for valid reasons. That was to have the premises vacated so that the tradespeople could get in and undertake the necessary works. The evidence is strongly against the premises being safe and inhabitable; the work was necessary. I cannot see a breach of any obligation on the part of the landlord in relation to the termination notice. Claim 3 – Failure to lodge the bond
The tenant states that on 12 August 2025 she paid the bond to the landlord, but no bond was paid into the Bond Centre. It was only when this dispute arose that the landlord paid the bond into the Bond Centre.
The landlord agrees that the bond was not lodged. The landlord states that this confusion arose with the change from postal to online lodgement.
The tenant claims exemplary damages on the basis that the landlord has breached section 19 of the RTA, for failing to lodge the bond with the Chief Executive.
Section 19 of the RTA sets out the “Duties of landlord on receipt of bond”, and confirms that the landlord: shall, within 23 working days after the payment is made, forward the amount received to the chief executive, together with a statement of particulars in the approved form signed by the landlord and the tenant.
For the purposes of this provision, the bond is considered to be lodged with the Chief Executive, by lodging the bond with the Bond Centre.
Section 19(2) of the RTA confirms that failure to lodge the bond following the section 19 requirements, is declared to be an unlawful Act, and therefore could be the subject of an order of exemplary damages.
In this case, I find it is more likely than not that the decision not to lodge the bond was intentional. The obligation to lodge the bond is very well known by landlords, and in this case, the evidence supports a conclusion that the landlord was aware that bonds needed to be lodged, and that the defence to the claim was a change from a paper based to electronic bond lodgement system.
There are strong interests for tenants to have their bond kept securely in the Bond Centre. There is a strong public interest that the bond system be robust. I consider it would be just to make an order of exemplary damages. The maximum level of exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond, is $1,500.00. In this case I order one third of that maximum, $500.00. Landlords claims
At the hearing, the landlord confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Compensation for repairs and cleaning b. Exemplary damages for having pets c. Failure to keep premises clean and tidy d. Undertaking alterations without consent Claim 1 Tenant failure to keep premises clean and tidy
The landlord states that the tenant did not keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy, with reference to the inspection reports.
The tenant disputes that she has failed to keep the premises clean and tidy.
Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s obligations, and that includes the obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy.
The landlord has a strong view that the tenant did not keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and has provided photographs which are submitted as proving that. I have reviewed those photographs, and I disagree. The premises seem on my assessment, very tidy. I have no reservation in concluding that on the evidence available, the tenant has complied with her obligations.
The landlord also raised concerns regarding the tenant having a lawnmower stored in the space under the house. The landlord submitted that this is unlawful, and a fire hazard. I am not persuaded that that is the case, storing items like lawnmowers in or under a dwelling is quite ordinary. The landlord has not provided the tenant with anywhere else for her to store her lawnmower, such as a shed, so it is hardly surprising that the lawnmower is stored under the house.
Landlord has not established a breach of any obligation so this claim is dismissed. Claim 2 – Tenant keeping a dog.
The landlord states that the tenancy agreement prohibited pets, but the tenant kept a dog without any form of consent.
The tenant states that she does not have a dog; it was the neighbour’s dog the landlord is referring to.
In conclusion, the landlord states that it does not matter if this dog was the neightours dog because the premises are not fenced, and she has breached the bylaws.
While there is a ‘no pets’ clause in the tenancy agreement, it can only apply to the obligations of a tenant. If I were to accept that the clause was enforceable, then it would mean the tenant could not have a pet. The landlord has not proven that the tenant had a pet. The tenant’s evidence, which has not been disproven, is that while there was a dog that would visit the premises, it was not hers.
The landlord has not established tenant has preached in your obligations around no pets. Claim 3 – Compensation for damage
The landlord’s position is that the tenant has caused a range of damage to the premises, such as damaged to the following areas: a. Exterior door frame b. Internal walls c. Flooring d. Cabinets e. External vent f. Fence g. Gutters
As I indicated to the landlord at the hearing, this claim is premature because the tenancy is ongoing. If the landlord considers that the premises are returned at the end of the tenancy, damaged, then the landlord is able to pursue that matter at that point, and once the relevant costs have been established. I express no view as to whether the tenant will be liable for the above costs, that will be a matter for the end of the tenancy. Claim 4 – Altered premises without consent
The landlord states that the tenant has moved the waterproofing under the house, and further, the tenant has attached items to the walls
The tenant disputes this claim.
On the evidence available, I find there is no support for the landlords position that the tenant has moved or interfered with the waterproofing under the house.
It relates to the claimed alterations, I am not persuaded that the tenant has made any minor alterations to the premises. Hanging pictures in the like are not alterations, they are an incident of everyday living in a residential dwelling.
This claim is dismissed.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case both parties have applied for named suppression, but I cannot conclude that either party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. Therefore, name oppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5447949 — Exemplary damages at 51 Bahari Drive, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5447949 — Exemplary damages at 51 Bahari Drive, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions