What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5457229 about?

The tribunal order states: Hindan.K Limited T/[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $150.00

How much money was awarded in case 5457229?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5457229?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5457229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13922995-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5457229 about?

The tribunal order states: Hindan.K Limited T/[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $150.00

How much money was awarded in case 5457229?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5457229?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5457229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13922995-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

142 Vincent Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5457229 — State of repair

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via videoconference on 20 July 2026.

The tenancy was from 10 February 2026 until 10 May 2026.

The tenant had viewed the premises online and signed up to the tenancy. However, when he came, he found that the premises was not clean, the kitchen cupboard had a door missing and work was required on the shower slide.

The tenant had asked for a mailbox key, but it was only provided on the last date of the tenancy when the tenant was able to retrieve mail that he received.

When the tenant applied with the Tenancy Tribunal, he had sought for work orders for the mailbox key to be provided, and for the kitchen cupboard door and shower slide to be fixed. However, as the tenancy had finished, the Tribunal did not consider any work order at the hearing. Instead, the hearing was focused on whether there should be any compensation.

Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.

From the photos of the premises that could be found online, there were photos of the kitchen when it was new and when it was being lived in. The more recent photo, which the file name seems to suggest that it was taken on 24 October 2025, clearly showed a missing kitchen cupboard door.

Although, a missing kitchen cupboard door shows that the landlord di not “provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair”, it does weaken the tenant’s argument for compensation as I find it more likely than not that those were the same photos that were up on the website when the tenant first viewed the premises online. It did not mispresent the state of the premises.

In relation to the mailbox key not being provided, the tenant confirmed that there was no important mail given the short duration of his stay at the premises. It was always going to be for a 3-month fixed term. Therefore, any important correspondences were sent to him by email.

I do find that there needs to be compensation for the premises not being provided in a reasonably clean state at the beginning of the tenancy.

The cleaning was provided after 2 weeks. I find $150.00 as adequate compensation for the premises not being provided in a reasonably clean state.

I do not find that this is a case that warrants exemplary damages. Accordingly, no other orders are made.

Order

Hindan.K Limited T/[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $150.00 immediately, for the premises not being provided a in reasonably clean state at the beginning of the tenancy.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via videoconference on 20 July 2026.
The tenancy was from 10 February 2026 until 10 May 2026.
The tenant had viewed the premises online and signed up to the tenancy. However, when he came, he found that the premises was not clean, the kitchen cupboard had a door missing and work was required on the shower slide.
The tenant had asked for a mailbox key, but it was only provided on the last date of the tenancy when the tenant was able to retrieve mail that he received.
When the tenant applied with the Tenancy Tribunal, he had sought for work orders for the mailbox key to be provided, and for the kitchen cupboard door and shower slide to be fixed. However, as the tenancy had finished, the Tribunal did not consider any work order at the hearing. Instead, the hearing was focused on whether there should be any compensation.
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
From the photos of the premises that could be found online, there were photos of the kitchen when it was new and when it was being lived in. The more recent photo, which the file name seems to suggest that it was taken on 24 October 2025, clearly showed a missing kitchen cupboard door.
Although, a missing kitchen cupboard door shows that the landlord di not “provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair”, it does weaken the tenant’s argument for compensation as I find it more likely than not that those were the same photos that were up on the website when the tenant first viewed the premises online. It did not mispresent the state of the premises.
In relation to the mailbox key not being provided, the tenant confirmed that there was no important mail given the short duration of his stay at the premises. It was always going to be for a 3-month fixed term. Therefore, any important correspondences were sent to him by email.
I do find that there needs to be compensation for the premises not being provided in a reasonably clean state at the beginning of the tenancy.
The cleaning was provided after 2 weeks. I find $150.00 as adequate compensation for the premises not being provided in a reasonably clean state.
I do not find that this is a case that warrants exemplary damages. Accordingly, no other orders are made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5457229 — State of repair at 142 Vincent Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5457229 — State of repair at 142 Vincent Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions