What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5451728 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5451728?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5451728?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5451728?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13818923-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5451728 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5451728?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5451728?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5451728?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13818923-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

148 Dundas Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5451728 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicants claimed compensation of $4,320.00 due to landlord maintenance work at the premises.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means a party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.

Should the tenants be compensated?

The landlord acquired the premises, and this fixed-term tenancy (to 31 December 2025), on 23 September 2025.
The tenants are all students who vacated the premises over the early part of November 2025 after exams finished. The last tenant left on 8 November 2025.
The landlords submitted they offered that the tenants retain their keys until the end of the fixed-term tenancy. This was declined, and regardless of any offer or not, the keys were returned and the premises vacated. This is not unusual for such Dunedin tenancies where the students leave Dunedin before the end of their fixed-term period.
There was exit discussion regarding the bond and a mutual agreement for landlord compensation from it due to a damaged door reached and the bond distributed.
The landlord commenced some repair activities after tenant vacate. I heard these activities exposed further repair issues that required more intrusive work. I invited both parties to respond on the likely motivation for the work and I am satisfied this was reactive maintenance work rather than any preplanned improvement to the premises by the new owners.
Having left the region, the tenants were unaware of this work until being advised by a neighbour of the on-going activities.
The tenants claim for compensation was based on rent rebatement based on the last six weeks rent paid.
The tenants did not suffer any loss of amenity or quiet enjoyment during this period as they had already vacated. The extent of work as described, if they had been residing during it, may have attracted some recognition of loss of amenity and impact on quiet enjoyment. Equally, the landlord may have deferred work to mitigate any consequential adverse impacts on the tenants.
Section 77(2)(n) RTA allows the Tribunal to grant general damages where a landlord or a tenant has breached a provision of the RTA.
In Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993 (upheld in the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust, CIV-2018-009-002094 [2020] NZDC 17667) sets out the factors that the Tribunal should take into account when making a damages award, being: a. The nature of the breach b. The duration of the breach c. The effect of the breach.
As I foreshadowed at the hearing, I was the work undertaken was reactive. I did not consider the landlord was being opportunistic in undertaking improvements while benefitting from rental income.
I considered what, if any, tenant loss occurred such that compensation should be ordered. By the date of work commencement, the tenants had already vacated the premises and the region, effectively surrendering the premises. There was no desire or need for any tenant to move back in during the remaining fixed-term period. If there was, and this was impeded by the work being undertaken, and no suitable compromise reached between the parties regarding this, there may have been grounds for consideration. This is, of course, conjecture.
In this claim, I do not find any loss has been established by the tenants and therefore no grounds for compensation exist.
I must therefore dismiss the claim.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The applicants claimed compensation of $4,320.00 due to landlord maintenance work at the premises.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means a party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”

While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.

Should the tenants be compensated?

The landlord acquired the premises, and this fixed-term tenancy (to 31 December 2025), on 23 September 2025.

The tenants are all students who vacated the premises over the early part of November 2025 after exams finished. The last tenant left on 8 November 2025.

The landlords submitted they offered that the tenants retain their keys until the end of the fixed-term tenancy. This was declined, and regardless of any offer or not, the keys were returned and the premises vacated. This is not unusual for such Dunedin tenancies where the students leave Dunedin before the end of their fixed-term period.

There was exit discussion regarding the bond and a mutual agreement for landlord compensation from it due to a damaged door reached and the bond distributed.

The landlord commenced some repair activities after tenant vacate. I heard these activities exposed further repair issues that required more intrusive work. I invited both parties to respond on the likely motivation for the work and I am satisfied this was reactive maintenance work rather than any preplanned improvement to the premises by the new owners.

Having left the region, the tenants were unaware of this work until being advised by a neighbour of the on-going activities.

The tenants claim for compensation was based on rent rebatement based on the last six weeks rent paid.

The tenants did not suffer any loss of amenity or quiet enjoyment during this period as they had already vacated. The extent of work as described, if they had been residing during it, may have attracted some recognition of loss of amenity and impact on quiet enjoyment. Equally, the landlord may have deferred work to mitigate any consequential adverse impacts on the tenants.

Section 77(2)(n) RTA allows the Tribunal to grant general damages where a landlord or a tenant has breached a provision of the RTA.

In Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993 (upheld in the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust, CIV-2018-009-002094 [2020] NZDC 17667) sets out the factors that the Tribunal should take into account when making a damages award, being: a. The nature of the breach b. The duration of the breach c. The effect of the breach.

As I foreshadowed at the hearing, I was the work undertaken was reactive. I did not consider the landlord was being opportunistic in undertaking improvements while benefitting from rental income.

I considered what, if any, tenant loss occurred such that compensation should be ordered. By the date of work commencement, the tenants had already vacated the premises and the region, effectively surrendering the premises. There was no desire or need for any tenant to move back in during the remaining fixed-term period. If there was, and this was impeded by the work being undertaken, and no suitable compromise reached between the parties regarding this, there may have been grounds for consideration. This is, of course, conjecture.

In this claim, I do not find any loss has been established by the tenants and therefore no grounds for compensation exist.

I must therefore dismiss the claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5451728 — Tenancy dispute at 148 Dundas Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5451728 — Tenancy dispute at 148 Dundas Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenants be compensated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenants be compensated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions