What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5449428 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 5449428?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5449428?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5449428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13838030-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5449428 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 5449428?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5449428?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5449428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13838030-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

1 Siska place, Christchurch, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5449428 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5449428 — net $2,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$500.00	Loss of amenity
Compensation: Tenant repairs	$1,500.00	Tenant repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,028.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,028.00

Both parties attended the hearing held on 1 July 2026 by video.

The tenancy began on 4 October 2024 and ended on 31 October 2025.

The tenant applied for a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards, compensation and exemplary damages.

At the hearing the issues were identified as being the compensation for loss of amenity when the kitchen was renovated and compensation for work carried out at the premises by the tenant. Kitchen renovation

The landlord carried out a renovation to the kitchen which was planned to take place from 22 July 2025 until 4 August 2025 (13 days). The tenant remained living in the premises during this time. The landlord gave the tenant compensation of $500.00 for the inconvenience.

The renovations took 14 days longer than expected and did not conclude until 19 August 2025.

Given that the landlord provided the tenant with $500.00 compensation for 13 days of inconvenience which ended up lasting 14 days longer than expected, I conclude that it is reasonable for the tenant to receive further compensation of $500.00 That amount is awarded. Maintenance and repairs by tenant

The tenant’s evidence is that there was a discussion at the beginning of the tenancy in relation to him wanting to remain in the tenancy for a five-year period. The tenancy agreement records a one-year fixed term tenancy.

The tenant was not happy that the tenancy ended after only one year. While I accept that the landlord was entitled to end the tenancy at the end of the fixed term and complied with the Act in relation to the notice required, I acknowledge the tenant thought that he would remain living in the tenancy longer.

It was because of this belief that the tenant said that he wanted to make improvements to the premises. This included painting all three bedrooms, the bathroom and the hallway, repairs to the fence, cleaning the exterior of the house and tree removal.

The landlord produced the pre tenancy inspection report and routine inspection reports. The ingoing report shows that the bedrooms had wallpaper which was in poor condition including parts that were peeling and rips in the wallpaper. There was wallpaper on the kitchen ceiling which was peeling. There was a large conifer tree blocking the left side of the driveway and there are pictures of the boundary fence appearing to be falling.

It is clear from the photographs during the tenancy that the bedrooms were painted, and the peeling wallpaper is no longer there. At the hearing the landlord said that she was not aware that the tenant had carried out significant painting at the premises. Even when she looked at the inspection reports she struggled to identify the significant difference from before the tenancy commenced.

The tenant said that he had discussed the improvements with the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy and showed paint swatches to ensure that the colours were agreed. Unfortunately, these conversations were not recorded but the tenant said that the landlord was happy with the improvements.

At the hearing there was acknowledgement that the landlord benefited from the work carried out by the tenant.

I do not accept that the landlord was not aware of the work carried out by the tenant. The landlord has benefitted from the tenant’s work due to the improved premises and possible increased value. There is no evidence that the landlord has complained about the work carried out by the tenant. I find that the landlord’s silence or acceptance of the benefit amounts to consent, especially given that the landlord had the opportunity to object and did not.

The tenant had sent an email to the landlord requesting $12,185.00 for the improvements. There is insufficient evidence to support this.

On the evidence before me I consider that the tenant should be compensated for some of the work that he has carried out which has significantly improved the premises. I award $1,500.00 which I consider is reasonable.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason the tenant’s name is suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5449428 — net $2,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$500.00	Loss of amenity
Compensation: Tenant repairs	$1,500.00	Tenant repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,028.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,028.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
From Vision To Reality Limited ali wong must pay [The tenant/s] $2,028.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 1 July 2026 by video.
The tenancy began on 4 October 2024 and ended on 31 October 2025.
The tenant applied for a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards, compensation and exemplary damages.
At the hearing the issues were identified as being the compensation for loss of amenity when the kitchen was renovated and compensation for work carried out at the premises by the tenant. Kitchen renovation
The landlord carried out a renovation to the kitchen which was planned to take place from 22 July 2025 until 4 August 2025 (13 days). The tenant remained living in the premises during this time. The landlord gave the tenant compensation of $500.00 for the inconvenience.
The renovations took 14 days longer than expected and did not conclude until 19 August 2025.
Given that the landlord provided the tenant with $500.00 compensation for 13 days of inconvenience which ended up lasting 14 days longer than expected, I conclude that it is reasonable for the tenant to receive further compensation of $500.00 That amount is awarded. Maintenance and repairs by tenant
The tenant’s evidence is that there was a discussion at the beginning of the tenancy in relation to him wanting to remain in the tenancy for a five-year period. The tenancy agreement records a one-year fixed term tenancy.
The tenant was not happy that the tenancy ended after only one year. While I accept that the landlord was entitled to end the tenancy at the end of the fixed term and complied with the Act in relation to the notice required, I acknowledge the tenant thought that he would remain living in the tenancy longer.
It was because of this belief that the tenant said that he wanted to make improvements to the premises. This included painting all three bedrooms, the bathroom and the hallway, repairs to the fence, cleaning the exterior of the house and tree removal.
The landlord produced the pre tenancy inspection report and routine inspection reports. The ingoing report shows that the bedrooms had wallpaper which was in poor condition including parts that were peeling and rips in the wallpaper. There was wallpaper on the kitchen ceiling which was peeling. There was a large conifer tree blocking the left side of the driveway and there are pictures of the boundary fence appearing to be falling.
It is clear from the photographs during the tenancy that the bedrooms were painted, and the peeling wallpaper is no longer there. At the hearing the landlord said that she was not aware that the tenant had carried out significant painting at the premises. Even when she looked at the inspection reports she struggled to identify the significant difference from before the tenancy commenced.
The tenant said that he had discussed the improvements with the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy and showed paint swatches to ensure that the colours were agreed. Unfortunately, these conversations were not recorded but the tenant said that the landlord was happy with the improvements.
At the hearing there was acknowledgement that the landlord benefited from the work carried out by the tenant.
I do not accept that the landlord was not aware of the work carried out by the tenant. The landlord has benefitted from the tenant’s work due to the improved premises and possible increased value. There is no evidence that the landlord has complained about the work carried out by the tenant. I find that the landlord’s silence or acceptance of the benefit amounts to consent, especially given that the landlord had the opportunity to object and did not.
The tenant had sent an email to the landlord requesting $12,185.00 for the improvements. There is insufficient evidence to support this.
On the evidence before me I consider that the tenant should be compensated for some of the work that he has carried out which has significantly improved the premises. I award $1,500.00 which I consider is reasonable.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason the tenant’s name is suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5449428 — Property damage at 1 Siska place, Christchurch, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5449428 — Property damage at 1 Siska place, Christchurch, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions