What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5463526 about?

The tribunal order states: Taylor Property Services Limited As Agent For Sarah Lee must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $148.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5463526?

Compensation: $120.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5463526?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5463526?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13735608-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5463526 about?

The tribunal order states: Taylor Property Services Limited As Agent For Sarah Lee must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $148.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5463526?

Compensation: $120.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5463526?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5463526?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13735608-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 78 Paihia Road, One Tree Hill, Auckland 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5463526 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Introduction

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5463526 — net $148.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$120.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$148.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$148.00

The hearing was conducted by video conference.

Mr and Mrs Christopher, the tenants, appeared on their own behalf. Mr Hu appeared on behalf of the landlord.

The tenants have applied for compensation for being unable to use the washing machine during the tenancy, together with reimbursement of the filing fee. Facts

The tenancy commenced on 3 December 2022.

A washing machine was supplied as a chattel under the tenancy agreement.

On 1 February 2026, Mrs Christopher noticed a burning smell while the washing machine was operating. The tenants immediately ceased using the machine and reported the matter through the property manager's maintenance portal.

As they looked into the problem, the tenants found out that this particular washing machine model had actually been recalled back in 2013 because of a fire hazard.

On the next business day, the property manager contacted the tenants, advised them not to use the machine, and commenced discussions with Samsung regarding replacement of the appliance.

The landlord reimbursed the tenants' laundromat expenses incurred during the period the machine could not be used.

Eventually, the washing machine was replaced on 17 March 2026.

The period between the tenants first reporting the issue and replacement of the washing machine was approximately 42 days.

On 22 February 2026, the tenants served a 14-day notice to remedy during that period. The replacement occurred approximately 10 days after the expiry of that notice.

What the tenants seek?

The tenants seek compensation for: a. loss of amenity arising from being unable to use the washing machine; b. inconvenience suffered during the 42-day period, including the time required to organise and undertake washing away from the premises; c. compensation for the period from the commencement of the tenancy until replacement of the washing machine on the basis that the supplied chattel was subject to a recall and therefore non-compliant; and d. reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee.

The tenants also submit that the landlord breached s 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to provide and maintain a compliant chattel. They seek exemplary damages. Tenants’ submissions

Mr. Christopher explained that the washing machine provided when the tenancy began had been recalled by the manufacturer in 2013 due to a fire risk. He said the recalled appliance had been provided as a chattel from the commencement of the tenancy on 3 December 2022 and therefore was not compliant with applicable safety requirements.

The tenants submitted that they first became aware of the issue on 1 February 2026 when Mrs Christopher noticed a burning smell while the washing machine was operating. They immediately stopped using the appliance and reported the matter to the property manager through the landlord's maintenance reporting system.

The tenants submitted that after reporting the issue, they were instructed not to use the washing machine because of the potential fire risk. Consequently, they went without a washing machine for about 42 days until a new one was installed on 17 March 2026.

Mr Christopher submitted that although the landlord, through the manufacturer, eventually replaced the washing machine, the replacement was not completed within a reasonable timeframe. He argued that alternative options were available to the landlord, including accepting a refund from Samsung and purchasing a replacement machine directly rather than waiting for Samsung's replacement process to be completed.

The tenants submitted that the landlord failed to comply with the 14-day notice to remedy served on 22 February 2026. They noted that the notice expired on 7 March 2026 and that the replacement washing machine was not installed until 17 March 2026.

The tenants further submitted that they suffered both loss of amenity and inconvenience as a result of being unable to use the washing machine. They were required to travel to a laundromat, wait for washing cycles to be completed, and organise their laundry away from the premises. Mr Christopher estimated that each trip required approximately 90 minutes and submitted that this represented a significant inconvenience beyond the actual laundromat costs.

The tenants acknowledged that the landlord reimbursed their laundromat expenses. However, they submitted that reimbursement of those expenses did not compensate them for the loss of amenity associated with the absence of a washing machine at the premises or for the time and inconvenience involved in making alternative arrangements.

The tenants also argued that the landlord was in breach of s 45(1)(b), and s 45(1)(c) of Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”). They submitted that the landlord was responsible for ensuring that the washing machine provided with the tenancy complied with applicable safety requirements and was maintained in a reasonable state of repair.

Mr Christopher submitted that because the recalled washing machine remained at the premises from the commencement of the tenancy until its replacement, the tenants had effectively been paying for a chattel that was not compliant throughout that period. On that basis, the tenants sought compensation not only for the 42-day period during which the machine could not be used, but also for the period from the commencement of the tenancy on 3 December 2022 until the replacement machine was installed on 17 March 2026. Landlord’s submissions

Mr Hu submitted that neither the landlord nor the property manager was aware that the washing machine was subject to a manufacturer recall in 2013 until the tenants reported the issue on 1 February 2026.

Mr Hu said the landlord purchased the property in approximately 2016 or 2017 and that the washing machine was already installed at the premises at that time. He submitted that the recalled appliance was already part of the property when the landlord bought it, and they had no idea about any safety issues with it.

Mr Hu submitted that the washing machine had operated without incident for many years. He noted that previous occupants had used the appliance without reporting any concerns and that the tenants themselves had used the washing machine from the commencement of the tenancy on 3 December 2022 until 1 February 2026 without identifying any fault or safety issue.

Mr Hu argued that the fact the tenants, who had experience and training in health and safety matters, were themselves unaware of the recall until February 2026 demonstrated that it was not a matter that could reasonably have been expected to come to the landlord's attention earlier.

Mr Hu submitted that once the issue was reported, the landlord acted promptly and appropriately. The property manager contacted Samsung immediately, sought advice regarding the recall, and instructed the tenants not to use the washing machine because of the potential fire risk.

Mr Hu submitted that the landlord relied on Samsung's replacement process and believed that a replacement machine would be supplied within a reasonable timeframe. He said the landlord had no reason to believe the replacement process would take as long as it ultimately did.

In response to the tenants' suggestion that the landlord should have accepted a refund and independently purchased a replacement washing machine, Mr Hu submitted that this option was not obviously quicker at the time. He said the landlord believed Samsung, as the manufacturer, was best placed to resolve the issue efficiently and to remove the recalled appliance from the premises.

Mr Hu said he actively followed up with Samsung throughout the process. He submitted that numerous emails were sent and regular telephone calls were made to Samsung in an effort to expedite the replacement. He said that he and the landlord were frustrated by the delay and that it exceeded their expectations.

Mr Hu submitted that the delay in obtaining the replacement was largely attributable to Samsung rather than any inaction by the landlord. He argued that the landlord should not be held responsible for delays caused by a third party over whom the landlord had no control.

Mr Hu further submitted that the landlord took reasonable steps to minimise the tenants' losses by agreeing at an early stage to reimburse all reasonable laundromat expenses incurred while the washing machine remained unavailable.

Mr Hu said those reimbursements were paid by the landlord notwithstanding that the landlord was still seeking reimbursement or resolution from Samsung. He submitted that the landlord had therefore acted reasonably and in good faith throughout the process.

While accepting that the tenants were unable to use the washing machine between 1 February 2026 and 17 March 2026, Mr Hu submitted that any compensation should be limited to that period.

Mr Hu argued that the tenants suffered no actual loss before 1 February 2026 because they had unrestricted use of the washing machine throughout that time. He submitted that although the appliance was later discovered to be subject to a recall, neither party was aware of that fact, and the machine remained functional until Mrs Christopher noticed a burning smell.

Mr Hu therefore disputed the tenants' claim for compensation covering the period from 3 December 2022 until 17 March 2026. He submitted that there was no evidence of any actual loss, damage, or deprivation of use during that period except between 1 February 2026 and 16 March 2026.

Mr Hu also disputed the tenants' claim for exemplary damages. He submitted that there was no deliberate or intentional conduct on the part of the landlord. Rather, the landlord was unaware of the recall and took steps to address the issue once it was brought to the landlord's attention.

In relation to compensation for the period the washing machine was unavailable, Mr Hu accepted that some allowance for loss of amenity may be appropriate. Referring to the tenants' own assessment, he submitted that compensation of approximately $10 per week for the six-week period, being $60 in total, would be reasonable.

Mr Hu therefore submitted that the tenants' claims for compensation relating to the period before discovery of the fault and for exemplary damages should be dismissed, and that any compensation should be confined to a modest sum reflecting the temporary loss of use of the washing machine after the issue was reported. The law

Section 45(1)(b) of the Act requires a landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.

Section 45(1)(c) requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.

Where a landlord provides chattels as part of a tenancy, those chattels form part of the premises the landlord is obliged to maintain. If a supplied chattel ceases to function properly, the landlord must, within a reasonable time after becoming aware of the problem, repair or replace the chattel.

However, a landlord's obligation to repair or replace a chattel arises when the landlord becomes aware, or ought reasonably to become aware, of a defect requiring attention. The Act does not impose absolute liability for unknown defects that have not resulted in any actual loss to the tenant.

Section 40(1)(d) requires a tenant to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovering any damage or defect requiring repair.

Compensation under the Act is intended to compensate for actual loss. A tenant seeking compensation must establish a loss arising from a breach of the Act on the balance of probabilities. Where a tenant is deprived of the use of a chattel provided under the tenancy agreement, compensation may be awarded for loss of amenity and inconvenience. Analysis

The tenants stressed the point that the washing machine had been recalled by the manufacturer back in 2013. I accept that the machine had previously been recalled. However, the existence of a recall does not, by itself, establish an entitlement to compensation or prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the machine requires repair.

The issue before me is not whether the washing machine had previously been recalled. The issue is whether the landlord breached the Act in a manner that caused the tenants actual loss.

Section 45 requires a landlord to maintain chattels supplied with a tenancy in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age of the chattels. Where a supplied chattel ceases to function properly, the landlord must repair or replace it within a reasonable time after becoming aware of the reported issue.

In the present case, there is no evidence that the washing machine exhibited any fault requiring repair, or that it was unable to function due to its age, before 1 February 2026. The evidence establishes that the tenants used the washing machine from the commencement of the tenancy on 3 December 2022 until 1 February 2026 without complaint and without any reported malfunction.

There is also no evidence that the landlord was aware of the manufacturer recall or any defect affecting the washing machine before the tenants reported the burning smell. In my view, if a landlord does not know about a problem and there is no sign that an appliance needs fixing, they can reasonably assume it is working satisfactorily. After all, Section 40(1)(d) of the Act requires tenants to report any faults as soon as they find them. Tenants are entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises and a landlord cannot be expected to constantly inspect or assess whether a chattel is operating properly. Rather, s 40(1)(d) of the Act places the burden on the tenants to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovering a fault or defect requiring repair.

I therefore do not accept the tenants' submission that compensation should be awarded from the commencement of the tenancy until the replacement of the washing machine. Although the machine was later found to be subject to a recall, the tenants continued to use it throughout that period and suffered no identifiable loss of use or loss of amenity.

Accordingly, I am not satisfied there is any principled basis upon which compensation can be awarded for the period from 3 December 2022 until 1 February 2026. If there is no actual loss, compensation cannot be awarded.

I also decline to award exemplary damages. There is no evidence that the landlord intentionally breached s 45 or knowingly provided an unsafe appliance. Nor is there evidence of any intentional disregard for the tenants' rights.

The evidence shows that as soon as the problem was reported, the landlord got in touch with Samsung, instructed the tenants to stop using the machine, reimbursed their laundromat costs, and eventually arranged for a replacement. While the replacement process took longer than the tenants considered reasonable, the delay appears to have arisen largely from the manufacturer's replacement process rather than any deliberate conduct by the landlord.

I therefore find that any breach of s 45 was not intentional and does not justify an award of exemplary damages.

The position changes from 1 February 2026. Once the burning smell was identified and the tenants were instructed not to use the washing machine, the chattel was effectively unavailable for use.

The replacement washing machine was not installed until 17 March 2026. The tenants were therefore deprived of the use of a washing machine supplied under the tenancy agreement for approximately 42 days.

During that period the tenants suffered a loss of amenity. The rent paid by the tenants included the benefit of a functioning washing machine. For 42 days they did not receive that benefit.

I also accept that the tenants suffered inconvenience. Although their laundromat expenses were reimbursed, they were still required to organise their washing away from home, travel to and from a laundromat, wait for washing cycles to be completed, and adjust their usual household arrangements. The evidence was that each trip required approximately 90 minutes.

In my view, compensation should therefore be awarded both for the loss of amenity arising from the absence of a functioning washing machine and for the inconvenience associated with making alternative arrangements.

Doing the best I can on the evidence before me, I assess compensation at $60 for loss of amenity and $60 for inconvenience.

Accordingly, the tenants are entitled to compensation totalling $120. Conclusion

The tenants are awarded: a. $60.00 for loss of amenity; and b. $60.00 for inconvenience, including the time required to organise and undertake washing away from the premises.

The tenants' claim for compensation relating to the period from 3 December 2022 to 17 March 2026 is dismissed.

The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

The total award is $120.00.

All other claims not specifically granted are dismissed. Filing fee

Because [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Introduction

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5463526 — net $148.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$120.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$148.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$148.00