What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5467934?

The tribunal order states: PR Property Management Limited As Agent For Aman Singh must pay Kristal

How much money was awarded in case 5467934?

Compensation: air conditioning witho…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $7,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to maintain wi…: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: stove (June to August…: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $6,500.00 awarded to tenant; Latches From June 2025 To Feb 2026: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Previous Order Application 5402271 D…: $7,578.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $605.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5467934?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5467934?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13577986-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5467934?

The tribunal order states: PR Property Management Limited As Agent For Aman Singh must pay Kristal

How much money was awarded in case 5467934?

Compensation: air conditioning witho…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $7,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to maintain wi…: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: stove (June to August…: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $6,500.00 awarded to tenant; Latches From June 2025 To Feb 2026: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Previous Order Application 5402271 D…: $7,578.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $605.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5467934?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5467934?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13577986-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

141A Portage Road, Mangere East, Auckland 2024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5467934 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5467934 — net $11,166.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Further order for rent arrears from 6 February to 16	$1,200.00		Further order for rent arrears from 6 February to 16
Previous order application 5402271 dated 06/02/2026	$7,578.00		Previous order application 5402271 dated 06/02/2026
Water rates owing	$605.29		Water rates owing
Lock/key replacement	$125.00		Lock/key replacement
Heat pump remote replacement	$125.00		Heat pump remote replacement
Compensation: air conditioning without condenser unit		$400.00	air conditioning without condenser unit
Compensation: stove (June to August 2025 unremedied		$900.00	stove (June to August 2025 unremedied
Compensation: failure to maintain windows, doors		$3,000.00	failure to maintain windows, doors
latches from June 2025 to Feb 2026		$2,500.00	latches from June 2025 to Feb 2026
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment, unrepaired		$7,500.00	breach of quiet enjoyment, unrepaired
Exemplary damages: failure to maintain		$6,500.00	failure to maintain
Total award	$9,633.29	$20,800.00
Net award		$11,166.71
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$11,166.71

Order

PR Property Management Limited As Agent For Aman Singh must pay Kristal Savage Bessant $11,166.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 6 February 2026 under application 5402271.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates and compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 6 February 2026 by order of the Tenancy Tribunal. There were substantial rent arrears leading to the termination of the tenancy by the Tribunal.
The bond was refunded to the landlord pursuant to the order of the Tribunal made on 6 February 2026 under application 5402271.
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages for breach of landlord’s maintenance obligations.
I firstly address the landlord’s vacated claims.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices.
The landlord seeks further rent from 6 February to 16 February 2026, the date the tenant vacated the premises.
The amounts owing at the end of the tenancy for rent and water rates are proved.
This order incorporates the previous order of order of the Tribunal made on 6 February 2026 under application 5402271.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s claim for rubbish removal fails for want of proof. There is no photograph showing rubbish required to be removed at the end of the tenancy.
The lawns were only mowed some 4 weeks after the tenants have vacated. I do not consider the lawns were in an overgrown state on 16 February 2026.
The landlord is entitled to change the locks because eviction proceedings had been carried out.
The heat pump remote was not returned. The landlord had to replace it.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord could not show when the damage to walls occurred. The tradeperson’s repair invoice was issued 4 weeks after 16 February 2026. Without showing the date of photograph of the 3 holes in the walls, I cannot be satisfied as to when the damage to the walls occurred. The tenant’s video recording of the premises on 16 February 2026 did not show any holes in the walls.
The onus of proving that damage occurred during the tenancy was on the landlord; the landlord’s claim for wall repairs fails.
I now address the tenant’s claims.

Has the landlord complied with their maintenance obligations?

The tenant seeks compensation against the landlord due to various items in the premises being unrepaired or unattended to within a reasonable timeframe after notifying the landlord.
I firstly set out the relevant legal principles that I must address when dealing with complaints raised by the tenant regarding maintenance.
Under section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
A landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they applied to the premises.
A landlord must also comply with the minimum standards of housing as set out in the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947. Section 15 of the Regulations provides that every house shall be free from dampness.
A tenant has a corresponding duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs (see section 40(1)(d) RTA).
The landlord’s obligation is therefore to repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair, either from observing the property or notice from the tenant: “... the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be.” (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010; see also Merwald Real Estate v Lanauze DC Auckland, MA151-89, 2 May 1989).
Here the tenant has set out a timeline of when the tenant has notified the landlord, including during property inspections and in particular by emails dated 21 June 2025 and 3 October 2025, of matters requiring repairs and maintenance. Some of the issues raised by the tenant have not been documented by the landlord’s property managers. In such instances, I accept the tenant’s direct evidence before me that the tenant has duly notified the landlord as required under section 40(1)(d) RTA.
Compensation ought to be awarded for breach of the landlord’s obligations and where the other party has suffered a loss or inconvenience because of that breach.
It goes without saying that only if the landlord is found to in breach of their obligations under section 45 (as set out above) and the tenant has carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify and allow maintenance to be attended to, would an award of compensation be considered and made.
Where the tenant has not carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify or not allow maintenance to be attended to, no award of compensation will be made.
Having heard from the parties, I find that there were specific instances of complaints raised by the tenant of items requiring attention, but the landlord failed to carry out the repairs within a reasonable time, as set out in the table above. Some of the tenant’s complaints were ignored altogether and the issues were never addressed prior to the end of the tenancy in February 2026.
I award the tenant compensation for the various unrepaired items as set out in the above table. The awards of compensation are for loss of amenities and general damages for stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenant from the time the landlord was notified of the issues, but failed to address them in a timely fashion.
While the tenant fell into rent arrears in 2025, I do not consider the tenant’s own failure to pay rent relevant in the quantum of the awards for compensation. I consider that the tenant should be entitled to a reasonable standard of accommodation regardless of the tenant’s history of rent payments.
The amounts awarded as set out in the above table are proved.
In addition to compensation, I also consider it just to award exemplary damages against the landlord for failure to maintain.
Breaching any of the obligations under section 45 RTA 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to meet their obligation to maintain the premises within a reasonable time after being informed by the tenant. I find they have 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has not given any cogent reasons for failing to attend to repairs in a timely fashion, and on why some repairs had not been carried out at all.
The tenant’s email of 3 October 2025 at 7:55pm to the landlord states: Hi Ram ... Are we able to move the inspection to Sunday as we have a house viewings between them times tomorrow and you are going to need the new keys as locks have been changed since last break in. ...just making a list of things for you... Every room in the house is leaking Leaking areas Front room leak middle of roof Second room leaking from unknown area causing wet and mould forming as wells as stench in the carpet third room leaking form the wardrobe lounge room leaking in three spots kitchen leaking in the far right corner....
The landlord’s failure to address them during the tenancy warrants condemnation. It is further exacerbated by seeing the landlord’s repair invoice that repairs to the windows and doors had been carried out on or about 13 March 2026, almost a month after the tenant vacated the premises.
If the landlord can repair them in March 2026, why won’t they carry out the same repairs in March or June 2025?! The landlord should have attended to them as soon as they are notified. The landlord’s failure to do so is deplorable.
For those reasons, I consider an award of exemplary damages on almost the highest end of the scale appropriate. I award exemplary damages in the sum of $6,500 against the landlord.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
By failing to attend to the tenant’s complaints about the beeping security alarm console for 11 months, I consider that the landlord has caused interference with the reasonable peace and comfort of the tenant in their use of the premises.
I award the tenant compensation of $2,500 for the landlord’s failure to attend to the noisy alarm system which kept beeping for 11 months.
The amounts set out in the table above are proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5467934 — net $11,166.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Further order for rent arrears from 6 February to 16	$1,200.00		Further order for rent arrears from 6 February to 16
Previous order application 5402271 dated 06/02/2026	$7,578.00		Previous order application 5402271 dated 06/02/2026
Water rates owing	$605.29		Water rates owing
Lock/key replacement	$125.00		Lock/key replacement
Heat pump remote replacement	$125.00		Heat pump remote replacement
Compensation: air conditioning without condenser unit		$400.00	air conditioning without condenser unit
Compensation: stove (June to August 2025 unremedied		$900.00	stove (June to August 2025 unremedied
Compensation: failure to maintain windows, doors		$3,000.00	failure to maintain windows, doors
latches from June 2025 to Feb 2026		$2,500.00	latches from June 2025 to Feb 2026
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment, unrepaired		$7,500.00	breach of quiet enjoyment, unrepaired
Exemplary damages: failure to maintain		$6,500.00	failure to maintain
Total award	$9,633.29	$20,800.00
Net award		$11,166.71
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$11,166.71

Order

PR Property Management Limited As Agent For Aman Singh must pay Kristal Savage Bessant $11,166.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 6 February 2026 under application 5402271.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates and compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 6 February 2026 by order of the Tenancy Tribunal. There were substantial rent arrears leading to the termination of the tenancy by the Tribunal.
The bond was refunded to the landlord pursuant to the order of the Tribunal made on 6 February 2026 under application 5402271.
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages for breach of landlord’s maintenance obligations.
I firstly address the landlord’s vacated claims.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices.
The landlord seeks further rent from 6 February to 16 February 2026, the date the tenant vacated the premises.
The amounts owing at the end of the tenancy for rent and water rates are proved.
This order incorporates the previous order of order of the Tribunal made on 6 February 2026 under application 5402271.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s claim for rubbish removal fails for want of proof. There is no photograph showing rubbish required to be removed at the end of the tenancy.
The lawns were only mowed some 4 weeks after the tenants have vacated. I do not consider the lawns were in an overgrown state on 16 February 2026.
The landlord is entitled to change the locks because eviction proceedings had been carried out.
The heat pump remote was not returned. The landlord had to replace it.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord could not show when the damage to walls occurred. The tradeperson’s repair invoice was issued 4 weeks after 16 February 2026. Without showing the date of photograph of the 3 holes in the walls, I cannot be satisfied as to when the damage to the walls occurred. The tenant’s video recording of the premises on 16 February 2026 did not show any holes in the walls.
The onus of proving that damage occurred during the tenancy was on the landlord; the landlord’s claim for wall repairs fails.
I now address the tenant’s claims.

Has the landlord complied with their maintenance obligations?

The tenant seeks compensation against the landlord due to various items in the premises being unrepaired or unattended to within a reasonable timeframe after notifying the landlord.
I firstly set out the relevant legal principles that I must address when dealing with complaints raised by the tenant regarding maintenance.
Under section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
A landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they applied to the premises.
A landlord must also comply with the minimum standards of housing as set out in the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947. Section 15 of the Regulations provides that every house shall be free from dampness.
A tenant has a corresponding duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs (see section 40(1)(d) RTA).
The landlord’s obligation is therefore to repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair, either from observing the property or notice from the tenant: “... the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be.” (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010; see also Merwald Real Estate v Lanauze DC Auckland, MA151-89, 2 May 1989).
Here the tenant has set out a timeline of when the tenant has notified the landlord, including during property inspections and in particular by emails dated 21 June 2025 and 3 October 2025, of matters requiring repairs and maintenance. Some of the issues raised by the tenant have not been documented by the landlord’s property managers. In such instances, I accept the tenant’s direct evidence before me that the tenant has duly notified the landlord as required under section 40(1)(d) RTA.
Compensation ought to be awarded for breach of the landlord’s obligations and where the other party has suffered a loss or inconvenience because of that breach.
It goes without saying that only if the landlord is found to in breach of their obligations under section 45 (as set out above) and the tenant has carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify and allow maintenance to be attended to, would an award of compensation be considered and made.
Where the tenant has not carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify or not allow maintenance to be attended to, no award of compensation will be made.
Having heard from the parties, I find that there were specific instances of complaints raised by the tenant of items requiring attention, but the landlord failed to carry out the repairs within a reasonable time, as set out in the table above. Some of the tenant’s complaints were ignored altogether and the issues were never addressed prior to the end of the tenancy in February 2026.
I award the tenant compensation for the various unrepaired items as set out in the above table. The awards of compensation are for loss of amenities and general damages for stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenant from the time the landlord was notified of the issues, but failed to address them in a timely fashion.
While the tenant fell into rent arrears in 2025, I do not consider the tenant’s own failure to pay rent relevant in the quantum of the awards for compensation. I consider that the tenant should be entitled to a reasonable standard of accommodation regardless of the tenant’s history of rent payments.
The amounts awarded as set out in the above table are proved.
In addition to compensation, I also consider it just to award exemplary damages against the landlord for failure to maintain.
Breaching any of the obligations under section 45 RTA 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to meet their obligation to maintain the premises within a reasonable time after being informed by the tenant. I find they have 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has not given any cogent reasons for failing to attend to repairs in a timely fashion, and on why some repairs had not been carried out at all.
The tenant’s email of 3 October 2025 at 7:55pm to the landlord states: Hi Ram ... Are we able to move the inspection to Sunday as we have a house viewings between them times tomorrow and you are going to need the new keys as locks have been changed since last break in. ...just making a list of things for you... Every room in the house is leaking Leaking areas Front room leak middle of roof Second room leaking from unknown area causing wet and mould forming as wells as stench in the carpet third room leaking form the wardrobe lounge room leaking in three spots kitchen leaking in the far right corner....
The landlord’s failure to address them during the tenancy warrants condemnation. It is further exacerbated by seeing the landlord’s repair invoice that repairs to the windows and doors had been carried out on or about 13 March 2026, almost a month after the tenant vacated the premises.
If the landlord can repair them in March 2026, why won’t they carry out the same repairs in March or June 2025?! The landlord should have attended to them as soon as they are notified. The landlord’s failure to do so is deplorable.
For those reasons, I consider an award of exemplary damages on almost the highest end of the scale appropriate. I award exemplary damages in the sum of $6,500 against the landlord.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
By failing to attend to the tenant’s complaints about the beeping security alarm console for 11 months, I consider that the landlord has caused interference with the reasonable peace and comfort of the tenant in their use of the premises.
I award the tenant compensation of $2,500 for the landlord’s failure to attend to the noisy alarm system which kept beeping for 11 months.
The amounts set out in the table above are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5467934 — State of repair at 141A Portage Road, Mangere East, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5467934 — State of repair at 141A Portage Road, Mangere East, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Has the landlord complied with their maintenance obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Has the landlord complied with their maintenance obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions