What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5460689 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 5460689?

Compensation: Loss Of Use: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5460689?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5460689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13875429-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5460689 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 5460689?

Compensation: Loss Of Use: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5460689?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5460689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13875429-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5460689 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5460689 — net $1,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of use	$1,000.00	Loss of use
Net award	$1,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,000.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5460689 — net $1,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of use	$1,000.00	Loss of use
Net award	$1,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,000.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,000.00 immediately, for loss of full enjoyment of the premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 19 June 2026. The tenant attended via phone. The landlord attended in person.
The tenancy was from 24 June 2022 until 24 February 2026.
The tenant applied for the following compensation: a. Rent overcharge: $31,020.00; b. Rent reduction due to delays in repairs: $18,800.00; and c. Breaches of privacy, peace and loss of income due to interruptions: $8,000.00.
The landlord opposed the tenant’s claims. I deal with each in turn. Rent overcharge
The tenant claimed that she had been overcharged for rent by $165.00 per week.
The weekly rent was originally $930 per week when the tenancy began on 24 June 2022.
The rent increased to $985 per week from 18 August 2023 and remained the same until the end of the tenancy on 24 February 2026.
The tenant claimed that she had been paying too much rent for the premises. She said that the Baileys website estimated the rental for this premises as being between $720 and $870 per week (median being $795), and a Crockers independent appraisal of between $800 to $900 per week (median being $850). The tenant said that the median rent estimate for this premises therefore was $820 per week.
This is an application for market rent under section 25 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. When the tenant applies for a market rent adjustment of the rent, the Tribunal can do so if the tenant can prove that the rent exceeded the market rent by a substantial amount.
This premises was a 5-bedroom house in Rothesay Bay. The rent estimate for a 4-bedroom house had median rent at $963 and $1,200 for the upper quartile.
When this premises was sold, after this tenancy ended, the listing agency had current rental appraised at between $990 and $1,150 as of 5 March 2026.
The tenant confirmed that the rent estimates provided were generated through the websites and not by anyone who attended the premises physically. It was also noted that the rental appraisals for the premises were based on the premises being a 4-bedroom house instead of a 5-bedroom house.
The landlord also provided data from comparable rental premises from the area.
I do not find that the tenant has proven that the rent exceeded the market rent by a substantial amount.
This claim is dismissed. Delays in repairs
The tenant claimed $18,800 as compensation for the delays in repairs. This was calculated at a rate of $100 per week for the loss of full enjoyment of the premises.
There were several issues raised by the tenant. The tenant said: a. The dishwasher was malfunctioning. It was replaced after 9 months. b. The downstairs bedroom windows had draught issues in two windows. These were fixed after more than 6 months. c. The garage door was not lockable upon moving in. There was no ability to secure the property initially. d. The ensuite bathroom extractor made rattling noise, making the adjacent bedroom unusable due to constant noise. This was fixed after 6 months. e. There were hanging cables outside the rumpus room that were never fixed. f. The porch lights went unfixed for the duration of the tenancy. g. The kitchen power sockets could only be used one at a time. This was fixed after 3 years. h. Two blinds were not replaced in the downstairs bedroom which affected the privacy. i. There were rusty nails popping up everywhere on the porch that resulted in foot injury. j. Waste master, and gas water heater broke down and were replaced, and leak in downstairs laundry sink fixed after 3 to 4 months due to the pipe being mounted in a bent position. k. A leak appeared in the bathroom wall in November 2025 leading to plumbing work that left multiple holes in the office and bathroom walls. l. The master bedroom glass veranda door opened during a wind gust damaging the gravity wall and the door hinges due to there being no hook in the wall to secure the door.
The tenant also said that that the property was advertised with a garage and a carport. However, the carport was located under a veranda, and the roof was not sealed. The garage entry was 25cm high, which prevented the entry of any vehicle, leaving it unsuitable for its intended purpose and had to be used solely for storage. However, these issues were never brought to the attention of the landlord until the end of the tenancy when this application was made to the Tribunal.
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this 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 the landlord 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 landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the tenant, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
However, the tenant must apply within 12 months of the commission of the unlawful act for any exemplary damages to be considered (other than for bond related matters).
Even if the tenant had lodged the exemplary damages claims within the required timeframe, I would not have found that the landlord had intentionally neglected the maintained of the premises given the repairs that took place.
However, I acknowledge that there were periods when the dishwasher was not working and the kitchen power sockets were not working properly. I acknowledge that these would have been an inconvenience for the tenant.
Under section 40(1)(d) RTA, a tenant must notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of the need for any repairs. I acknowledge that many of these issues were brought to the attention of the landlord soon after the tenant became aware of the need for repair.
The landlord maintained that when matters were raised by the tenant, the landlord attended to them. For any urgent matters, they were immediately attended to. For any non-urgent repairs, the property manager had to obtain quotes and approval from the overseas-based owner before proceeding. The landlord acknowledged that there were some delays on some occasions.
The landlord said in relation to the dishwasher, a new tray was installed in September 2022 after receiving quotes for the work, and when that did not resolve the issue, a brand-new dishwasher was purchased and installed in March 2023. The new dishwasher also had some faults, including one time a user-fault, but the technician was duly called when the need arose.
The tenant first reported the electrical issues regarding the kitchen power outlet in writing on 24 January 2025. The electrician replaced the circuit board, resolving the issue on 7 May 2025.
When the landlord does not attend to the repairs, there is a duty on the tenant to escalate the matter further. Under section 49 RTA, the tenant must take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from the landlord’s breach of the landlord’s duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Escalation would be by way of a 14-day notice. The tenant gave the landlord a 14-day notice on 22 December 2025. In the 14-day notice, the tenant requested that 2 holes in the downstairs bathroom be fixed, roots be removed from drainpipes in the back garden, which had caused a leak up through the shower base in the downstairs bathroom the previous year, a humidity report be provided, humidity be rechecked, mould be eliminated, a working dishwasher be facilitated, the master bedroom door and wall be repaired, and the rotting deck be fixed.
The landlord replied to the 14-day notice on the following day. The landlord stated that the property manager, the insurance assessor, and the plumber attended the property for the 2 holes in the downstairs bathroom. The repair was scheduled for 19 January 2026. There was no issue raised in relation to the drainpipes since they had been fixed in July 2024. There was no humidity report to provide, and the downstairs bathroom issue was a leak issue that was being sorted and not a humidity issue. Mould was a joint responsibility of the parties and there were no issues raised about the dishwasher at the time. The master bedroom door and wall were an ongoing matter between the parties that required resolving regarding who was liable. The deck had been attended to by a handyman before and the tenant had been told about hammering down nails if they happen to protrude back up.
Having read through the correspondences between the parties, I do not find that the tenant has proven the claim for $100 rent reduction for loss of full enjoyment of the premises.
However, I acknowledge the duration of time when the dishwasher was out of action, and the period of time towards the end of the tenancy when there were holes in the walls for plumbing issues. I order the landlord to reimburse the tenant $1,000.00 for the tenant’s loss of full enjoyment of the premises.
I do not find other maintenance issues warrant any compensation. Breaches of privacy, peace and loss of income due to disruptions
The tenant claimed that due to the construction and maintenance disruption, the peace and privacy of the property were compromised, affecting privacy and daily activities. The loss of income due to the breaches was estimated at $8,000.
Under section 38(2) RTA, a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant explained that at the time when the holes were opened up in the walls due to the plumbing leak, the tenant had important meetings, guest hosting and online meetings that she had to attend to. She acknowledged that it was not possible to exactly quantify the loss of income.
The tenant said that during the plumbing repair work, water had been cut off causing disruption to the tenant and guests. The toilet could not be flushed and the tenant had no access to water for a number of hours.
The landlord said that the repairs were delayed due to the tenant postponing repair work by contacting the contractors directly.
I acknowledge the inconvenience the tenant faced in the amount already ordered above.
However, I do not find that there was any breach of privacy or peace for the tenant as envisaged under the RTA. The loss of income cannot be proven.
This claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5460689 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5460689 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions