What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5450909 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] and Partners

How much money was awarded in case 5450909?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $270.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Refund Of Change Of Tenant Expense: $172.50 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $1,244.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5450909?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5450909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13522820-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5450909 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] and Partners

How much money was awarded in case 5450909?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $270.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Refund Of Change Of Tenant Expense: $172.50 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $1,244.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5450909?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5450909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13522820-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

145B Yaldhurst Road, Sockburn, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5450909 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5450909 — net $1,486.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$1,244.00		Cleaning and rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$270.25		Lawns and Garden work
Bench top damage	$345.00		Bench top damage
Lock/key replacement	$400.00		Lock/key replacement
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$400.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Refund of change of tenant expense		$172.50	Refund of change of tenant expense
Compensation: Failure to maintain		$200.00	Failure to maintain
Total award	$2,259.25	$772.50
Net award	$1,486.75
Bond	$2,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,486.75

Order

[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] and Partners Limited T/A Bayleys Canterbury $1,486.75 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 (5993750-004) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s] and Partners Limited T/A Bayleys Canterbury: $1,486.75 [The tenant/s]: $633.25

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and payment of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for payment of the bond and compensation and exemplary damages for various breaches of the landlord’s obligations. Background
The tenancy agreement for this tenancy was agreed in January 2022 and the tenancy began on 20 January 2022.
There was a previous tenancy in which one of the tenants was problematic and the landlord and the other tenants agreed to end the tenancy and to agree a new tenancy after replacing the problematic tenant with a new tenant.
Since then, people have come and gone from the premises. There was a formal change of tenant at the end of 2022 and then another request for a change of tenant that was not completed.
After that, two of the tenants abandoned the tenancy and the only remaining tenant, Ms Oakly, treated additional occupiers of the premises as flatmates.
The tenancy ended on 5 October 2025.
Because the two tenants who abandoned the tenancy were never released from the tenancy they have been named in the applications and in this order. They have taken no part in the proceedings and Ms Oakly is the sole instigator and prosecutor of the tenants’ application. I will refer to her from now on as the tenant. Landlord’s Claims Accepted Claims
The tenant accepted the claims for garden work and benchtop damage. The landlord agreed to reduce the original claim for garden work by 50%. The Tenant’s Obligations
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish and return all keys and security devices Disputed Claims Carpet Moth
The landlord claims $280 for treatment and control of carpet moth in the premises. They say that the premises were cluttered during the tenancy and not kept reasonably clean which increased the risk of carpet moth infestation. If the premises had been kept tidy, they could have seen the signs of infestation and damage and dealt with it. It was worst in the sleep out. The landlord has replaced the carpet and there is no claim in relation to that.
The tenant accepts that the premises were not kept reasonably clean and tidy at times, and the landlord served breach notices in relation to that. She said that they complied with the notices and there was no suggestion that the landlord was unhappy on reinspection. She also disputed a causative link between the condition of the premises and the carpet moth. She denied having any knowledge of carpet moth in the premises during the tenancy.
I accept that carpet moth can be attracted to premises if they are unclean. I also accept that uncleanliness is not a precondition for carpet moth. I note that they are attracted to dark undisturbed areas and that those conditions can exist anywhere. They primarily feed on the carpet fibres.
Overall, the link between the condition of the premises and the carpet moth is not strong enough in this case for me to find on the balance of probabilities (that it is more likely than not) that it was the tenant’s breach that caused the infestation. This claim must therefore be dismissed. Keys
The landlord claims $434.30 for lock changing although they accepted that no side garage door key was provided to the tenants so that amount would come down slightly.
There was disagreement about what keys were provided (back in 2017), what keys remained in 2022 and what keys were returned in 2025. The tenant accepted that the back door key was not returned. Because I have awarded the sum of $400 based on the landlord’s legitimate concerns regarding the security of the premises if the locks were not changed, I do not need to resolve these disagreements.
The tenant has claimed compensation due to the landlord’s insistence that only tenants could occupy the premises and that any other occupiers must provide their personal details. I agree with the tenant’s argument that the landlord was not entitled to insist on those things. But there is a corollary to that because having occupiers coming and going without the landlord having any scrutiny over that inevitably creates uncertainty about the bona fides of those people.
In this case, one troublesome tenant was effectively removed from the tenancy and then two of the original tenants abandoned the tenancy. Later, others occupied the premises, and they came and went without the landlord having any knowledge of them. Regardless of what the law says about that situation, it was reasonable for the landlord to expect that the tenants would remain living in the premises unless there was a formal change of tenant in which case they would have oversight over who was joining the tenancy.
In all the circumstances I find that the landlord had legitimate concerns about the security of the premises because of the way that the tenancy was conducted by the tenants and so it was reasonable to change the locks and expect the tenants to pay the cost. I have therefore awarded $400. Tenant’s Claims Tenant as Sole Tenant
The tenant asked to be treated as the sole tenant. There are two parts to that.
One is the tenants’ liability. The tenant wants to be solely liable for any residual liability to the landlord. That is not an issue given the result of these applications. But as a matter of principle, the tenants who were legally the tenants at the end of the tenancy remain liable and must be named. If tenants want to remove themselves from the tenancy, they must do so formally and that has not happened in the case of the two tenants who abandoned the tenancy. They are therefore named.
The other concerns who should receive bond. The Tribunal does not usually concern itself with apportionment of the bond between tenant because that is an issue between tenants and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine such issues. But in this case, practicality dictates that the tenant should receive the share of the bond due to the tenants. There is a share due to them only because the tenant has made the application and if it is not paid to her, it could remain with the Bond Centre and be forfeited to the Crown. It will therefore be paid to the tenant. Quiet Enjoyment
The landlord must not interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort and privacy in the tenant’s use of the premises.
There are several things done by the landlord that the tenant says interfered with her quiet enjoyment of the premises and I will consider them in turn.
The landlord repeatedly requested payment of arrears which it recorded were owing for three days between the end of the original tenancy and the start of this tenancy. The parties agreed that the original tenants would vacate for the three days and re-enter from the start of the new tenancy. They were permitted to leave their belongings there, but the landlords took the view that they did not vacate.
Partly at least, this continued due to staff changes and the fact that the arrears continued to be shown on the ledger. I accept that it should not have happened and that it was an annoyance to the tenant. I don’t accept that it was requiring rent when it was not due. The landlord believed that it was due but they wrong.
The landlord should not have continued to raise the issue. If there is a dispute that can’t be resolved, parties should come to the Tribunal. That was not practicable in this case due to the modest amount and the landlord should have left it until the end of the tenancy.
The landlord was not happy about people occupying the premises who were not tenants or whom they could not vet. They raised the issue with the tenant from time to time. They could not insist on this because the tenancy agreement expressly allowed up to four occupants whether tenants or residents. That said, I can understand the landlord’s concerns and there was no harm is asking. But in this case, I accept that the landlord’s conduct went too far.
The tenant complains about the landlord’s failure to comply with her Privacy Act requests. In my view that is something for the Privacy Commissioner to deal with, not the Tribunal. I don’t agree that in this case it can also be a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
The tenant also claims that the landlord required the carpet to be professionally cleaned and that was unlawful. She asserted that the carpets were heavily stained before the tenancy or at least before 2017 when the original tenancy started. The evidence does not support that. In any case I see this as a legitimate disagreement over the condition of the carpet not as a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.
The interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises that I have found was minor but irritating for the tenant. It did not amount to harassment. Although it happened more than once, there was no pattern of harassment in my view. Exemplary damages are not therefore available. An award of compensation is justified, and I have awarded $400. Failure to Itemise Invoices
Section 44A of the Act provides that a landlord may recover the expenses incurred in respect of a consented assignment, subletting, parting with possession or termination of a tenancy but must first provide an itemised account. It is an unlawful act to seek payment without providing an account
The tenant claims repayment of the money she paid for two applications for change of tenant on the ground that the landlord did not provide an itemised account and, in relation to the second payment, that the change was not completed.
In my view, neither charge was justified because the changes fall within s17 of the Act not s44A. They were variations of the tenancy agreement not an assignment, subletting, parting with possession or termination. But the tenant was insistent that her claim was based on the absence of an itemised account and so I will consider the claim on that basis.
The landlord agreed to repay the second fee for the uncompleted change and so I have awarded that.
It is too late to claim exemplary damages for a breach of s17 and so the only remedy for failing to provide an itemised account is compensation. In my view the fact that there was no itemised invoice does not entitle the tenant to compensation. Leaving aside whether the charge was permitted, the fee was reasonable. If I am wrong about this, I rely on 85 of the Act and the substantial merits and justice of the case. The landlord did not need to agree to the change, and they were put to the expense which was paid. It would be unfair now to set that aside. The claim for repaying of the first charge is therefore dismissed. Dryer
The drier was provided with the original tenancy. The landlord said that the drier was left in the premises when the tenancy was granted based on goodwill, and it would not be replaced if it broke down. They say that was agreed with the tenant. It broke down in February 2025 and the tenant claims compensation from that time to the end of the tenancy. She bought her own dryer.
The dryer was included in the chattels list for the tenancy which the landlord said was an error. They used the old chattels list. I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point. The dryer was problematic, and it made sense for the landlord not to take responsibility for it. The fact that it was in the chattels list is not conclusive. I find that the parties agreed that it would not be replaced and so this claim is dismissed. Failure to Maintain
Section 45 of the Act requires the landlord, among other things, to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant raised several maintenance issues, and I will deal with them in turn.
There was a cracked window during the tenancy. I accept that it was a crack in the outside pane of glass in a double-glazed window. I also accept that it did not amount to an unreasonable state of repair. It was in a bedroom not occupied by the tenant and so it did not affect her in any case.
There was a green substance emanating from two light switches. The landlord that they had it checked by an electrician, and he said that the wiring was old but did not need replacing for safety reasons. I accept the landlord’s evidence but, in my view, something should have been done about the situation. It is not acceptable to have green material oozing from light switches. It means that the wiring is not in a reasonable state of repair, safety issue or not.
The shared driveway became potholed, and it was repaired. The tenant claimed that by the end of the tenancy it was again not in acceptable condition, and it was overgrown. This was not supported by the evidence. I note as well that the tenant does not drive.
The front gate was becoming somewhat dilapidated but there was no complaint about it from the tenant. She said that landlord was aware of it. The landlord said that when they attended the premises the gate was always open. The gate may have needed repair but there is no evidence that it was affecting the tenant and so no compensation is required.
There was a problem opening and closing the ranch slider and then in January 2025 the handle snapped after which the tenant said that it was not used. The landlord was aware of it but said that they were not aware that it was affecting the use of the door. In my view the landlord should have repaired it.
The breaches I have found proved are minor and I award $200 compensation for them. The landlord has generally complied with their maintenance obligations and so no award of exemplary damages is justified. Goods Left at the Premises
The tenant did not leave goods at the premises, but she claims that because the landlord believed that she had (by claiming the cost of disposal), they should have to pay exemplary damages. I don’t accept that. The landlord’s obligations regarding goods left at the premises apply only to the tenant’s goods therefore there has been no breach, and this claim is dismissed. Result
After setting off the awards, the tenants must pay $1,486.75 from the bond. The bond has been split to give effect to the result. Suppression
The parties have had mixed success and see no compelling reason to grant their requests for name suppression. The requests are therefore dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5450909 — net $1,486.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$1,244.00		Cleaning and rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$270.25		Lawns and Garden work
Bench top damage	$345.00		Bench top damage
Lock/key replacement	$400.00		Lock/key replacement
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$400.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Refund of change of tenant expense		$172.50	Refund of change of tenant expense
Compensation: Failure to maintain		$200.00	Failure to maintain
Total award	$2,259.25	$772.50
Net award	$1,486.75
Bond	$2,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,486.75

Order

[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] and Partners Limited T/A Bayleys Canterbury $1,486.75 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 (5993750-004) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s] and Partners Limited T/A Bayleys Canterbury: $1,486.75 [The tenant/s]: $633.25

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and payment of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for payment of the bond and compensation and exemplary damages for various breaches of the landlord’s obligations. Background
The tenancy agreement for this tenancy was agreed in January 2022 and the tenancy began on 20 January 2022.
There was a previous tenancy in which one of the tenants was problematic and the landlord and the other tenants agreed to end the tenancy and to agree a new tenancy after replacing the problematic tenant with a new tenant.
Since then, people have come and gone from the premises. There was a formal change of tenant at the end of 2022 and then another request for a change of tenant that was not completed.
After that, two of the tenants abandoned the tenancy and the only remaining tenant, Ms Oakly, treated additional occupiers of the premises as flatmates.
The tenancy ended on 5 October 2025.
Because the two tenants who abandoned the tenancy were never released from the tenancy they have been named in the applications and in this order. They have taken no part in the proceedings and Ms Oakly is the sole instigator and prosecutor of the tenants’ application. I will refer to her from now on as the tenant. Landlord’s Claims Accepted Claims
The tenant accepted the claims for garden work and benchtop damage. The landlord agreed to reduce the original claim for garden work by 50%. The Tenant’s Obligations
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish and return all keys and security devices Disputed Claims Carpet Moth
The landlord claims $280 for treatment and control of carpet moth in the premises. They say that the premises were cluttered during the tenancy and not kept reasonably clean which increased the risk of carpet moth infestation. If the premises had been kept tidy, they could have seen the signs of infestation and damage and dealt with it. It was worst in the sleep out. The landlord has replaced the carpet and there is no claim in relation to that.
The tenant accepts that the premises were not kept reasonably clean and tidy at times, and the landlord served breach notices in relation to that. She said that they complied with the notices and there was no suggestion that the landlord was unhappy on reinspection. She also disputed a causative link between the condition of the premises and the carpet moth. She denied having any knowledge of carpet moth in the premises during the tenancy.
I accept that carpet moth can be attracted to premises if they are unclean. I also accept that uncleanliness is not a precondition for carpet moth. I note that they are attracted to dark undisturbed areas and that those conditions can exist anywhere. They primarily feed on the carpet fibres.
Overall, the link between the condition of the premises and the carpet moth is not strong enough in this case for me to find on the balance of probabilities (that it is more likely than not) that it was the tenant’s breach that caused the infestation. This claim must therefore be dismissed. Keys
The landlord claims $434.30 for lock changing although they accepted that no side garage door key was provided to the tenants so that amount would come down slightly.
There was disagreement about what keys were provided (back in 2017), what keys remained in 2022 and what keys were returned in 2025. The tenant accepted that the back door key was not returned. Because I have awarded the sum of $400 based on the landlord’s legitimate concerns regarding the security of the premises if the locks were not changed, I do not need to resolve these disagreements.
The tenant has claimed compensation due to the landlord’s insistence that only tenants could occupy the premises and that any other occupiers must provide their personal details. I agree with the tenant’s argument that the landlord was not entitled to insist on those things. But there is a corollary to that because having occupiers coming and going without the landlord having any scrutiny over that inevitably creates uncertainty about the bona fides of those people.
In this case, one troublesome tenant was effectively removed from the tenancy and then two of the original tenants abandoned the tenancy. Later, others occupied the premises, and they came and went without the landlord having any knowledge of them. Regardless of what the law says about that situation, it was reasonable for the landlord to expect that the tenants would remain living in the premises unless there was a formal change of tenant in which case they would have oversight over who was joining the tenancy.
In all the circumstances I find that the landlord had legitimate concerns about the security of the premises because of the way that the tenancy was conducted by the tenants and so it was reasonable to change the locks and expect the tenants to pay the cost. I have therefore awarded $400. Tenant’s Claims Tenant as Sole Tenant
The tenant asked to be treated as the sole tenant. There are two parts to that.
One is the tenants’ liability. The tenant wants to be solely liable for any residual liability to the landlord. That is not an issue given the result of these applications. But as a matter of principle, the tenants who were legally the tenants at the end of the tenancy remain liable and must be named. If tenants want to remove themselves from the tenancy, they must do so formally and that has not happened in the case of the two tenants who abandoned the tenancy. They are therefore named.
The other concerns who should receive bond. The Tribunal does not usually concern itself with apportionment of the bond between tenant because that is an issue between tenants and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine such issues. But in this case, practicality dictates that the tenant should receive the share of the bond due to the tenants. There is a share due to them only because the tenant has made the application and if it is not paid to her, it could remain with the Bond Centre and be forfeited to the Crown. It will therefore be paid to the tenant. Quiet Enjoyment
The landlord must not interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort and privacy in the tenant’s use of the premises.
There are several things done by the landlord that the tenant says interfered with her quiet enjoyment of the premises and I will consider them in turn.
The landlord repeatedly requested payment of arrears which it recorded were owing for three days between the end of the original tenancy and the start of this tenancy. The parties agreed that the original tenants would vacate for the three days and re-enter from the start of the new tenancy. They were permitted to leave their belongings there, but the landlords took the view that they did not vacate.
Partly at least, this continued due to staff changes and the fact that the arrears continued to be shown on the ledger. I accept that it should not have happened and that it was an annoyance to the tenant. I don’t accept that it was requiring rent when it was not due. The landlord believed that it was due but they wrong.
The landlord should not have continued to raise the issue. If there is a dispute that can’t be resolved, parties should come to the Tribunal. That was not practicable in this case due to the modest amount and the landlord should have left it until the end of the tenancy.
The landlord was not happy about people occupying the premises who were not tenants or whom they could not vet. They raised the issue with the tenant from time to time. They could not insist on this because the tenancy agreement expressly allowed up to four occupants whether tenants or residents. That said, I can understand the landlord’s concerns and there was no harm is asking. But in this case, I accept that the landlord’s conduct went too far.
The tenant complains about the landlord’s failure to comply with her Privacy Act requests. In my view that is something for the Privacy Commissioner to deal with, not the Tribunal. I don’t agree that in this case it can also be a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
The tenant also claims that the landlord required the carpet to be professionally cleaned and that was unlawful. She asserted that the carpets were heavily stained before the tenancy or at least before 2017 when the original tenancy started. The evidence does not support that. In any case I see this as a legitimate disagreement over the condition of the carpet not as a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.
The interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises that I have found was minor but irritating for the tenant. It did not amount to harassment. Although it happened more than once, there was no pattern of harassment in my view. Exemplary damages are not therefore available. An award of compensation is justified, and I have awarded $400. Failure to Itemise Invoices
Section 44A of the Act provides that a landlord may recover the expenses incurred in respect of a consented assignment, subletting, parting with possession or termination of a tenancy but must first provide an itemised account. It is an unlawful act to seek payment without providing an account
The tenant claims repayment of the money she paid for two applications for change of tenant on the ground that the landlord did not provide an itemised account and, in relation to the second payment, that the change was not completed.
In my view, neither charge was justified because the changes fall within s17 of the Act not s44A. They were variations of the tenancy agreement not an assignment, subletting, parting with possession or termination. But the tenant was insistent that her claim was based on the absence of an itemised account and so I will consider the claim on that basis.
The landlord agreed to repay the second fee for the uncompleted change and so I have awarded that.
It is too late to claim exemplary damages for a breach of s17 and so the only remedy for failing to provide an itemised account is compensation. In my view the fact that there was no itemised invoice does not entitle the tenant to compensation. Leaving aside whether the charge was permitted, the fee was reasonable. If I am wrong about this, I rely on 85 of the Act and the substantial merits and justice of the case. The landlord did not need to agree to the change, and they were put to the expense which was paid. It would be unfair now to set that aside. The claim for repaying of the first charge is therefore dismissed. Dryer
The drier was provided with the original tenancy. The landlord said that the drier was left in the premises when the tenancy was granted based on goodwill, and it would not be replaced if it broke down. They say that was agreed with the tenant. It broke down in February 2025 and the tenant claims compensation from that time to the end of the tenancy. She bought her own dryer.
The dryer was included in the chattels list for the tenancy which the landlord said was an error. They used the old chattels list. I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point. The dryer was problematic, and it made sense for the landlord not to take responsibility for it. The fact that it was in the chattels list is not conclusive. I find that the parties agreed that it would not be replaced and so this claim is dismissed. Failure to Maintain
Section 45 of the Act requires the landlord, among other things, to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant raised several maintenance issues, and I will deal with them in turn.
There was a cracked window during the tenancy. I accept that it was a crack in the outside pane of glass in a double-glazed window. I also accept that it did not amount to an unreasonable state of repair. It was in a bedroom not occupied by the tenant and so it did not affect her in any case.
There was a green substance emanating from two light switches. The landlord that they had it checked by an electrician, and he said that the wiring was old but did not need replacing for safety reasons. I accept the landlord’s evidence but, in my view, something should have been done about the situation. It is not acceptable to have green material oozing from light switches. It means that the wiring is not in a reasonable state of repair, safety issue or not.
The shared driveway became potholed, and it was repaired. The tenant claimed that by the end of the tenancy it was again not in acceptable condition, and it was overgrown. This was not supported by the evidence. I note as well that the tenant does not drive.
The front gate was becoming somewhat dilapidated but there was no complaint about it from the tenant. She said that landlord was aware of it. The landlord said that when they attended the premises the gate was always open. The gate may have needed repair but there is no evidence that it was affecting the tenant and so no compensation is required.
There was a problem opening and closing the ranch slider and then in January 2025 the handle snapped after which the tenant said that it was not used. The landlord was aware of it but said that they were not aware that it was affecting the use of the door. In my view the landlord should have repaired it.
The breaches I have found proved are minor and I award $200 compensation for them. The landlord has generally complied with their maintenance obligations and so no award of exemplary damages is justified. Goods Left at the Premises
The tenant did not leave goods at the premises, but she claims that because the landlord believed that she had (by claiming the cost of disposal), they should have to pay exemplary damages. I don’t accept that. The landlord’s obligations regarding goods left at the premises apply only to the tenant’s goods therefore there has been no breach, and this claim is dismissed. Result
After setting off the awards, the tenants must pay $1,486.75 from the bond. The bond has been split to give effect to the result. Suppression
The parties have had mixed success and see no compelling reason to grant their requests for name suppression. The requests are therefore dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5450909 — Property damage at 145B Yaldhurst Road, Sockburn, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5450909 — Property damage at 145B Yaldhurst Road, Sockburn, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions