What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5461249 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 5461249?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5461249?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5461249?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13693281-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5461249 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 5461249?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5461249?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5461249?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13693281-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat A, 101 Apu Crescent, Wellington, Wellington 6022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5461249 — Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Eugene Patrick O'Connor and Jan Idelle Therese Robles Atienza must pay [The tenant/s] $5,041.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,900.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. The landlord did not attend the hearing and emailed yesterday (which was a public holiday) and asked for an adjournment.
The tenant moved into the tenancy premises – a one bedroom self contained unit - in June 2025. She had problems getting wifi right from the start, and then had a series of leaks into the bathroom, kitchen and lounge. The bedroom became mouldy. The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages because of breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). She also wants her bond refunded. The questions I have to decide include: • Should I allow an adjournment? • Was there a breach of the duty to repair and maintain? • Should I allow compensation for belongings? • Was there a loss of amenity? • Did the landlord enter the unit unlawfully? • Should the bond be refunded to the tenant? • Was there a breach of the duty to lodge the bond? • Should I allow suppression?

Should I allow an adjournment?

One of the landlords emailed the registry yesterday and said: ...I’ve been trying to contact the tribunal regarding a hearing ... I have been away overseas for the last three weeks and won’t be back until the end of August. Hence I am physically unable to attend the hearing. Unfortunately, I have not kept up to date with my emails due to the course I’m attending and have only just seen and received a text message regarding this. Additionally the co-owner of the property also now resides overseas ... Hence is also unable to attend in person. Is it all possible to reschedule this for another date when I’m back in the country? Or reschedule for a video call?
I considered the request for an adjournment immediately before the hearing. Advice an application had been filed was sent to the landlord in March 2026. The notice of hearing was sent to the landlord at the start of May. A number of reminder emails and messages have been sent since then. The last minute request suggests the landlord is looking to avoid the hearing. The tenant took time off work to attend and missed out on training she is required to complete for her qualification. The matter was allocated a whole day and the time could not be used for another hearing. I decided the landlord had not provided grounds for an adjournment.
The registrar emailed the landlord this morning and said the hearing would go ahead but the landlord could phone in. There was no reply to that email.

Was there a breach of the duty to repair and maintain?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 RTA, which requires the landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant had a number of leaks during the tenancy. On 4 July she notified the landlord about leaks in the bathroom and kitchen. The correspondence provided by the tenant shows the bathroom leak was not repaired in a timely manner. In August the tenant advised that there was visible mould on the skylight in the bedroom. At the end of September she moved some furniture in the bedroom and discovered significant mould growing on the carpet, up the wall, and on the back of her mirror. The leaks continued in the bathroom and a tarpaulin was put over the skylight. In October the tenant discovered that her belongings in the bathroom drawers were so mouldy they had to be thrown out. In November there was a leak from an existing hole in the lounge ceiling. None of the leaks were repaired during the tenancy.
The tenant has provided me with photos and 14 day notices and emails and messages. I find she has proved the landlord knew about the leaks and the mould but failed to fix the issues.
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act. 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.
I have not heard from the landlord but it is clear from the communication between the parties that the landlord knew about the issues. The decision not to repair must have been intentional. The effect on the tenant was significant. She started sleeping in the lounge because of her reaction to the mould in the bedroom. She was unwell for most of the six months she was a tenant. She had to constantly follow up her requests for maintenance which was stressful and time consuming. She said “I felt terrible and so stressed and I could not get them to respond”. She gave notice and moved out sooner than expected because she did not think the landlord was taking her seriously. It is in tenants interests that landlords carry out repairs and there is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages to encourage compliance.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $2000. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar orders against the landlord.

Should I allow compensation for belongings?

The tenant has made a claim for damage to a mirror, a cushion, some wool, and the contents of the bathroom drawers. The tenant said these items were all mouldy and she could not clean the items because of her allergic reaction to mould and her asthma. The tenant provided me with photos and values for some of the items. The second-hand cushion would have had negligible value and this claim is dismissed. There is not enough evidence for me to allow the claim for the items in the bathroom and I find items like the bottles of nail polish could have been cleaned. Items of sentimental value were also damaged but it is impossible for me to put a value on, for example, children’s drawings. I find the tenant has proved the claim for the mirror and the wool because it seems unlikely these could have been cleaned, and I have allowed the $152 claimed.

Was there a loss of amenity?

The tenant has applied for compensation for a loss of amenity. I have considered the documents and the photos. I find the tenant was paying rent for a fibre connection which was promised before she signed the tenancy agreement, but not possible because there was no ONT box. This was not provided until 3 September 2025. The tenant was worried about the mould in the bedroom and slept in the lounge for 11 weeks. When the leaks started in the lounge she had to push all her belongings into half the room, out of the way of the water. The tenant was paying $475 a week. She asked the landlord for compensation and a reduction in rent but there was no agreement.
I am persuaded there was a loss and the tenant was paying rent for a unit she could not use as intended. I find $95 a week is a fair compensation, payable from 4 July 2025 until she moved out.

Did the landlord enter the unit unlawfully?

The tenant claims the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice. A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA 1986.
The tenant provided me with emails and messages which show the landlord most likely entered the unit on 2 and 3 September 2025 without giving proper notice. The tenant wanted the work to be done and the biggest issue for her at the time was that the door to her unit was left unlocked on both days. I find there was a loss because of the stress on those two days and the additional vigilance required to demand proper notice after this. I find $135 to be fair compensation.

Should the bond be refunded to the tenant?

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. Section 22B(2) RTA provides that a landlord seeking payment from the bond must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. I have sent the request to the Bond Centre.

Was there a breach of the duty to lodge the bond?

The tenant claims the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after her payment was received. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500. See section 19, 109(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant has proved the bond was paid and not lodged as required. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act. The same considerations apply for exemplary damages. It is clear from the record of communication that the landlord knew the bond should have been lodged, so I find the landlord acted intentionally. The effect for the tenant was more admin, more chasing, and a loss of trust. It is in tenants interests that bonds are held by an independent third party and public interest that landlords are penalised if they do not comply.
I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $500. Again, this is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any previous orders against the landlord for the same breach.

Should I allow suppression?

The tenant has made an application for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The tenant’s application is successful because she is the most successful party. The landlords’ names will be published because there is public interest when landlords have to pay compensation and exemplary damages. The address of the tenancy premises will also be published because there is public interest when there are leaks and mould during a tenancy. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5461249 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat A, 101 Apu Crescent, Wellington, Wellington 6022

Tenancy Tribunal case 5461249 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat A, 101 Apu Crescent, Wellington, Wellington 6022

Order

Reasons

Should I allow an adjournment?

Was there a breach of the duty to repair and maintain?

Should I allow compensation for belongings?

Was there a loss of amenity?

Did the landlord enter the unit unlawfully?

Should the bond be refunded to the tenant?

Was there a breach of the duty to lodge the bond?

Should I allow suppression?

Order

Reasons

Should I allow an adjournment?

Was there a breach of the duty to repair and maintain?

Should I allow compensation for belongings?

Was there a loss of amenity?

Did the landlord enter the unit unlawfully?

Should the bond be refunded to the tenant?

Was there a breach of the duty to lodge the bond?

Should I allow suppression?