What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5453946 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 5453946?

Compensation: Delay in fence and gat…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Drainage Issues: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Reimburse Gas Cylinder Hire: $366.25 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5453946?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5453946?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13606796-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5453946 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 5453946?

Compensation: Delay in fence and gat…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Drainage Issues: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Reimburse Gas Cylinder Hire: $366.25 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5453946?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5453946?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13606796-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

79 Forest Drive, Methven, Methven 7730 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5453946 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5453946 — net $1,044.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Reimburse gas cylinder hire	$366.25	Reimburse gas cylinder hire
Compensation: Drainage issues	$250.00	Drainage issues
Compensation: Delay in fence and gate reinstatement	$400.00	Delay in fence and gate reinstatement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,044.25
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,044.25

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Whalan and Partners Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,044.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The application for compensation for an alleged unnotified entry is dismissed.
The application for compensation arising from a non-compliant gas installation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today. Ms Glendining and Ms Watson represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for alleged breaches by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities. Background
The tenancy started on 12 January 2023 for a fixed term that was the renewed. After that the tenancy became a periodic tenancy. It ended on 15 December 2025 after the tenant gave notice.
During the tenancy, the tenant became aware that the gas califont installation was non-compliant. As well, she incurred costs for the hire of gas cylinders. She was also concerned about drainage issues, especially in winter. A hedge that was removed from the side of the property was not replaced by a fence for about 70 days, nor were the front gates reinstated until August 2024. Finally, the tenant was concerned about an unnotified attendance at the property by her property manager.
On 24 February 2026 the tenant filed her application with the Tribunal. She seeks compensation of $34,680.00 together with exemplary damages. Issues
The issue the Tribunal must determine are these: •Should the landlord reimburse the tenant the cost of the hire of gas cylinders? •Should the Tribunal award the tenant compensation for issues arising from the non-compliant gas califont installation? •Should the Tribunal award the tenancy compensation arising from the drainage issues? •Should the Tribunal award the tenant compensation arising from the delayed reinstatement of the boundary fence and the front gates? •Should the Tribunal award compensation for an unnotified attendance by the property manager? •Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages? Relevant law Statutory provisions
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Here, the tenant has claimed compensation of $34,680.00. That is unrealistic.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, 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. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 • The public interest. Discussion Should the landlord reimburse the tenant the cost of the hire of gas cylinders?
The landlord accepted that the tenant should be reimbursed for the hire of the gas cylinders throughout the tenancy. I allow the amount of $366.25 as claimed by the tenant by consent (marked *). Should the Tribunal award the tenant compensation for issues arising from the non-compliant gas califont installation?
During the tenancy a contractor delivering gas found a gas leak and commented that the gas califont installation appeared to be non-compliant. That required the gas califont installation to be relocated.
The landlord sent a work order for the work within 5 minutes of being notified. The landlord was notified on 28 August 2025 and the repair (the relocation and compliance work) was completed on 5 September 2025. For that 8-day period them tenant still had access to gas, but did not use it, because she was scared of the risk to her and her family.
The landlord’s representative said the owner bought the property about 9 years ago. No non-compliance issues had been raised until the contractor delivering gas mentioned it to the tenant. The landlord acted immediately.
This is not a matter where the landlord deliberately acted against the interests of the tenant. Older properties can have compliance issues due to later changes to legislation and regulations. It is the landlord’s actions once an issue arises that matter.
Here, the landlord acted immediately, and the issue was promptly resolved. The tenant’s concern is about what might have happened rather than what actually happened.
In terms of the criteria for awarding compensation as detailed in Birch, I find that there is no basis for the Tribunal to award compensation. The landlord’s prompt action means that it did not breach its statutory responsibility to repair.
I dismiss this part of the tenant’s application. Should the Tribunal award the tenant compensation arising from the drainage issues?
The tenant queried whether the premises were compliant with the HHS and in particular with the drainage standard.
The first tenancy agreement for the tenancy that started on 12 January 2023 has properly completed HHS statements and notes that the gutters and downpipes did not efficiently drain water to an appropriate outfall.
The renewal tenancy agreement for the term that started on 10 January 2024 states that the moisture ingress and drainage standards were met.
The landlord’s representative produced evidence that the spouting was repaired in June 2022 and no issues were raised by the tenant during inspections in July and October 2024.
The tenant served a 14-day breach notice on 1 August 2025 for the drainage issues. While the gutters were cleaned, the drainage issue was not resolved by the time the tenancy ended. The landlord’s representative said that was due to the owner wanting to get quotes for what was a costly repair and was mindful of causing damage to the backyard. The work was done in March 2026 when the premises were vacant, and the backyard was dry.
That repair and maintenance issues arise does not necessarily mean that premises become HHS non-compliant. Here, the landlord had a HHS assessment done before the tenancy started. Identified issues were remedied. It has since had another HHS assessment done (post tenancy) and after the drainage work was completed.
This is not a case where the landlord has failed to maintain and repair the premises meaning that the premises were not compliant with the HHS. Nor has it failed to take actions to ensure HHS compliance.
However, there were delays in the work being completed. That caused the tenant a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy especially during the winter months.
Even with properly compliant drainage, there can still be ponding of water on lawns during winter after heavy rain, more common due to changes in the weather pattern over recent years.
For the tenant’s loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the delayed drainage repairs and maintenance I award her compensation of $250.00. Should the Tribunal award the tenant compensation arising from the delayed reinstatement of the boundary fence and the front gates?
At the start of the tenancy there was a hedge than ran down the right boundary leading to the front of the premises and gates in place. The hedge acted as a fence. This was important for the tenant because she had 2 young children, one of whom she described as a ‘runner’.
Due to proposed actions by the neighbour, the owner had to remove the hedge and replace it with a fence. That took 71 days. The front gate was not reinstated for a longer time; one half of the gate was missing between 21 February and 23 August 2024.
Even if the landlord had little control over the progress of the fence due to the actions of the neighbour, the length of time involved putting up the fence taken together with the even longer time before the gates were remedied means that the tenant lost some enjoyment of the tenancy. She has to be vigilant when her children were outside, and they were often unable to go outside until the work was completed.
For this loss of enjoyment, I award the tenant compensation of $400.00. Should the Tribunal award compensation for an unnotified attendance by the property manager?
The tenant referred to an instance when her property manager arrived at the property to take photos but turned up the day after the date and time agreed between them, surprising her partner.
The landlord’s representative explained that she made a simple date error and when the tenant’s partner mentioned that she had the wrong date, she went back to the office to reschedule the appointment.
The property manager did not commit any statutory breach because she did not enter the tenancy premises. A landlord can access the outside of the property without notice. I accept that this was a simple date error and therefore a mistake. I dismiss this part of the tenant’s application.

Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages?

For the Tribunal to award exemplary damages, the tenant must prove that the landlord committed a defined unlawful act and did so with intent. In Birch, the Court said that acting with intent meant that the landlord ‘turned their mind to the unlawful act and then deliberately set about to commit it’.
In this case, I do not find that the landlord acted with intent. While the delay in replacing the fence and gate, and in having the drainage investigated and repaired was frustrating for the tenant, it was (at best) negligent, but not intentional. Negligence (if the landlord was negligent) is not sufficient to meet the threshold for exemplary damages.
I dismiss the application for exemplary damages. Result
The landlord will pay the tenant $1,044.25 comprising compensation of $650.00 and $366.25 for reimbursement of the hire of the gas cylinders (that amount by consent). I also reimburse the tenant the filing fee on the successful application Name suppression
The tenant sought, and is entitled to, an order for name suppression as the application is successful. The landlord sought, but is not entitled to, an order for name suppression as its defence to the application is only partly successful 2 .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5453946 — net $1,044.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Reimburse gas cylinder hire	$366.25	Reimburse gas cylinder hire
Compensation: Drainage issues	$250.00	Drainage issues
Compensation: Delay in fence and gate reinstatement	$400.00	Delay in fence and gate reinstatement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,044.25
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,044.25

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Whalan and Partners Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,044.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The application for compensation for an alleged unnotified entry is dismissed.
The application for compensation arising from a non-compliant gas installation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today. Ms Glendining and Ms Watson represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for alleged breaches by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities. Background
The tenancy started on 12 January 2023 for a fixed term that was the renewed. After that the tenancy became a periodic tenancy. It ended on 15 December 2025 after the tenant gave notice.
During the tenancy, the tenant became aware that the gas califont installation was non-compliant. As well, she incurred costs for the hire of gas cylinders. She was also concerned about drainage issues, especially in winter. A hedge that was removed from the side of the property was not replaced by a fence for about 70 days, nor were the front gates reinstated until August 2024. Finally, the tenant was concerned about an unnotified attendance at the property by her property manager.
On 24 February 2026 the tenant filed her application with the Tribunal. She seeks compensation of $34,680.00 together with exemplary damages. Issues
The issue the Tribunal must determine are these: •Should the landlord reimburse the tenant the cost of the hire of gas cylinders? •Should the Tribunal award the tenant compensation for issues arising from the non-compliant gas califont installation? •Should the Tribunal award the tenancy compensation arising from the drainage issues? •Should the Tribunal award the tenant compensation arising from the delayed reinstatement of the boundary fence and the front gates? •Should the Tribunal award compensation for an unnotified attendance by the property manager? •Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages? Relevant law Statutory provisions
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Here, the tenant has claimed compensation of $34,680.00. That is unrealistic.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, 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. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 • The public interest. Discussion Should the landlord reimburse the tenant the cost of the hire of gas cylinders?
The landlord accepted that the tenant should be reimbursed for the hire of the gas cylinders throughout the tenancy. I allow the amount of $366.25 as claimed by the tenant by consent (marked *). Should the Tribunal award the tenant compensation for issues arising from the non-compliant gas califont installation?
During the tenancy a contractor delivering gas found a gas leak and commented that the gas califont installation appeared to be non-compliant. That required the gas califont installation to be relocated.
The landlord sent a work order for the work within 5 minutes of being notified. The landlord was notified on 28 August 2025 and the repair (the relocation and compliance work) was completed on 5 September 2025. For that 8-day period them tenant still had access to gas, but did not use it, because she was scared of the risk to her and her family.
The landlord’s representative said the owner bought the property about 9 years ago. No non-compliance issues had been raised until the contractor delivering gas mentioned it to the tenant. The landlord acted immediately.
This is not a matter where the landlord deliberately acted against the interests of the tenant. Older properties can have compliance issues due to later changes to legislation and regulations. It is the landlord’s actions once an issue arises that matter.
Here, the landlord acted immediately, and the issue was promptly resolved. The tenant’s concern is about what might have happened rather than what actually happened.
In terms of the criteria for awarding compensation as detailed in Birch, I find that there is no basis for the Tribunal to award compensation. The landlord’s prompt action means that it did not breach its statutory responsibility to repair.
I dismiss this part of the tenant’s application. Should the Tribunal award the tenant compensation arising from the drainage issues?
The tenant queried whether the premises were compliant with the HHS and in particular with the drainage standard.
The first tenancy agreement for the tenancy that started on 12 January 2023 has properly completed HHS statements and notes that the gutters and downpipes did not efficiently drain water to an appropriate outfall.
The renewal tenancy agreement for the term that started on 10 January 2024 states that the moisture ingress and drainage standards were met.
The landlord’s representative produced evidence that the spouting was repaired in June 2022 and no issues were raised by the tenant during inspections in July and October 2024.
The tenant served a 14-day breach notice on 1 August 2025 for the drainage issues. While the gutters were cleaned, the drainage issue was not resolved by the time the tenancy ended. The landlord’s representative said that was due to the owner wanting to get quotes for what was a costly repair and was mindful of causing damage to the backyard. The work was done in March 2026 when the premises were vacant, and the backyard was dry.
That repair and maintenance issues arise does not necessarily mean that premises become HHS non-compliant. Here, the landlord had a HHS assessment done before the tenancy started. Identified issues were remedied. It has since had another HHS assessment done (post tenancy) and after the drainage work was completed.
This is not a case where the landlord has failed to maintain and repair the premises meaning that the premises were not compliant with the HHS. Nor has it failed to take actions to ensure HHS compliance.
However, there were delays in the work being completed. That caused the tenant a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy especially during the winter months.
Even with properly compliant drainage, there can still be ponding of water on lawns during winter after heavy rain, more common due to changes in the weather pattern over recent years.
For the tenant’s loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the delayed drainage repairs and maintenance I award her compensation of $250.00. Should the Tribunal award the tenant compensation arising from the delayed reinstatement of the boundary fence and the front gates?
At the start of the tenancy there was a hedge than ran down the right boundary leading to the front of the premises and gates in place. The hedge acted as a fence. This was important for the tenant because she had 2 young children, one of whom she described as a ‘runner’.
Due to proposed actions by the neighbour, the owner had to remove the hedge and replace it with a fence. That took 71 days. The front gate was not reinstated for a longer time; one half of the gate was missing between 21 February and 23 August 2024.
Even if the landlord had little control over the progress of the fence due to the actions of the neighbour, the length of time involved putting up the fence taken together with the even longer time before the gates were remedied means that the tenant lost some enjoyment of the tenancy. She has to be vigilant when her children were outside, and they were often unable to go outside until the work was completed.
For this loss of enjoyment, I award the tenant compensation of $400.00. Should the Tribunal award compensation for an unnotified attendance by the property manager?
The tenant referred to an instance when her property manager arrived at the property to take photos but turned up the day after the date and time agreed between them, surprising her partner.
The landlord’s representative explained that she made a simple date error and when the tenant’s partner mentioned that she had the wrong date, she went back to the office to reschedule the appointment.
The property manager did not commit any statutory breach because she did not enter the tenancy premises. A landlord can access the outside of the property without notice. I accept that this was a simple date error and therefore a mistake. I dismiss this part of the tenant’s application.

Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages?

For the Tribunal to award exemplary damages, the tenant must prove that the landlord committed a defined unlawful act and did so with intent. In Birch, the Court said that acting with intent meant that the landlord ‘turned their mind to the unlawful act and then deliberately set about to commit it’.
In this case, I do not find that the landlord acted with intent. While the delay in replacing the fence and gate, and in having the drainage investigated and repaired was frustrating for the tenant, it was (at best) negligent, but not intentional. Negligence (if the landlord was negligent) is not sufficient to meet the threshold for exemplary damages.
I dismiss the application for exemplary damages. Result
The landlord will pay the tenant $1,044.25 comprising compensation of $650.00 and $366.25 for reimbursement of the hire of the gas cylinders (that amount by consent). I also reimburse the tenant the filing fee on the successful application Name suppression
The tenant sought, and is entitled to, an order for name suppression as the application is successful. The landlord sought, but is not entitled to, an order for name suppression as its defence to the application is only partly successful 2 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5453946 — Tenancy dispute at 79 Forest Drive, Methven, Methven 7730

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5453946 — Tenancy dispute at 79 Forest Drive, Methven, Methven 7730

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions