What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5473154 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 5473154?

Made In This Case, And The Tribunal…: $528.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5473154?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5473154?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13645621-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5473154 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 5473154?

Made In This Case, And The Tribunal…: $528.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5473154?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5473154?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13645621-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5473154 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5473154. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. Ramki Raveendran	$528.00		made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. Ramki Raveendran

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5473154. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. Ramki Raveendran	$528.00		made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. Ramki Raveendran

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Ramki Raveendran is to pay $528.00 to the tenant immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims that the landlord: a. breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment b. failed to maintain the premises. c. breached Healthy Homes Standards d. failed to ensure the tenant’s security.
The tenant is seeking compensation and exemplary damages. Background
The tenant, along with four other tenants, began a fixed term tenancy at the premises on 9 June 2025. The fixed term was to 9 June 2026. The premises is one of many apartments in a multi-storey building. The tenant stated that in November the tenants were advised of construction work to be carried out at the building. On 9 December the landlord emailed the tenants requesting a meeting to discuss the proposed construction work. The meeting was on 18 December. The work to be carried out in the building was extensive. The noise would affect their enjoyment of the premises. The landlord proposed that the tenants could be released from their tenancy and assisted with costs relating to the move. Initially it appeared that the tenants would all move as soon as possible. In his email to the landlord on 18 December Diwash wrote, “As a result of the meeting we had with you and the discussions among us (tenants), we are requesting that you do not wait until January for viewing...... Hopefully, the action will be taken as soon as possible.” The tenants were requesting moving arrangements be worked out as soon as possible.
On 8 January 2026 the landlord emailed the tenants as follows: Hi [Name suppressed] and Team The whole purpose of the meeting is to arrange a mutual solution as It's a fixed term contract. As mentioned in the meeting from level 5 to level 10 going under construction so you can't live in that apartment from 10th of March. (my bold)
The email continued with options for the tenants and financial compensation.
The landlord assisted the tenants to arrange new tenancies. The landlord’s offered to pay the tenants’ moving costs and any increased rent the tenants might have to pay in a new tenancy and time spent packing and viewing properties. It became apparent that most tenants were amenable to the move however the tenant wanted to make sure that all his costs were covered before agreeing to move.
During this time sent a series of detailed and lengthy emails setting out his financial requirements if he was to move. The landlord agreed to pay some costs but not all the costs that the tenant requested. By 14 January some tenants had arranged other accommodation or to end their tenancy. By 11 February, three tenants had moved out. It appears that this was made easier because there was some discontent between the tenants before the construction issue was raised by the landlord.
The tenant’s rent remained the same no matter the number of tenants in the apartment. B [another tenant] also remained in the premises.
The tenant’s request for $5,250.00 made on 30 January was rejected by the landlord on 2 February,
On 9 February the tenant set out details regarding his request to be paid $6,000.00 to move out.
In response on 11 February the landlord emailed the tenant stating that he had passed this request to the owners and was waiting for their response. In that email he stated” “Also as you mentioned and we discussed until a mutual agreement is made you don’t have to move out.” (my bold)
On 13 February the tenant’s response included the following statement: “I note your recent statement indicating that I may remain in the premises. However, this does not negate or erase the disruption already caused, nor the administrative, financial, and health impacts that have arisen”.
The landlord responded stating that because nothing had been agreed the tenant could stay in the apartment but would be contacted once the landlord received the building construction notice. Hi [Name suppressed] For you to move out as nothing is mutually confirmed or agreed you can keep staying in the same apartment also Balaji is also living there so the rent comes to 165*2 = 330$ per week for now. As Balaji still wants to live there. Please take care of your health. Once I hear back from the owners and once I receive the Building construction letter I will contact you back. In the meantime please let me know if I can help with anything else.
On 26 March the tenant emailed the landlord stating he had lodged a Tenancy Tribunal application because of the prolonged period of uncertainty regarding his tenancy. The landlord responded as follows: Hi [Name suppressed] Please see the details below:
On Feb 11, 4:56 PM I emailed you not to look for another room because I agreed to stay there continuously, and We will not start the work while you are staying in the apartment.
Initially we proposed that you all reach a mutual agreement to move out of the apartments but only 3 tenants agreed to move out mutually and ended the tenancy and You and Bxxxx is still staying there.
As I agreed on Wednesday, February 11th, you can stay without any disruption. Now, no work will happen until your move-out date on 9th June 2026. You can stay there and pay for your room and the other tenants moved out.
In the meantime, what security issues did you face? Please give me the details.
Loss of secured accommodation: Please don't worry; you are still staying in the current 7C apartment and you don't need to move out until the contract end date.
Including the risk of being left alone on the premises or between multiple floors—please understand you only signed for your apartment. I don't think the nearby apartments are within your interest. Moreover, we have reception.
And again on 27 March: You are staying in the same room until the contract finishes, and After you move out they will carry out the work in the apartment. What is causing you stress? We asked all tenants for a mutual arrangement to move out and everyone wants to move out individually because of internal opinion differences. However, you asked for 5K, which is unreasonable. Are you still unhappy even after agreeing to stay in the same apartment until the end of the tenancy? Do you want the 5K and to stay in the apartment until the end of the contract by going to tribunal? I think that is unfair. I was willing to work out a mutual agreement for you to move out but now we've agreed that you will stay in the apartment until the tenancy end date.

What compensation are you wanting from us?

Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises?

The landlord did not interfere with the tenants’ enjoyment of the premises from 9 June 2025 before the construction project was first discussed in December. At that meeting the landlord informed the tenants that they couldn’t live in the apartment after 10 March, three months before the tenancy was to end. The landlord’s email on 8 January in para 4 above shows that to be the case.
It was acceptable for the landlord to try to reach agreement with the tenants to find other accommodation. In this case the landlord did so with financial incentives. The landlord recognised that there could be financial losses for the tenants by making the move. Some tenants were happy to move to other accommodation. However what was not acceptable was the landlord initially informing the tenants that they had to move out of the tenancy premises by 10 March.
Fixed term tenancies are to give parties certainty about accommodation. It is true that parties can negotiate to reduce a fixed term. It is also true that a party can apply to the Tribunal to have a fixed term reduced where there is an unforeseen change of circumstances causing a severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced. However it is not acceptable for one party to unilaterally decide that a fixed term will end and put pressure on other party/parties to move out.
From the evidence I am satisfied that the landlord breached The tenant’s quiet enjoyment. The requirement to move resulted in time taken to consider other accommodation, writing emails and a concern that agreement would not be reached in time. It was not until 11 February that the landlord made clear that the tenant did not need to reach agreement and could stay until the end of the tenancy.
I have determined that for about two months, The tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises was breached.
However I am not satisfied that The tenant’s quiet enjoyment was breached by the landlord after that date. After 11 February it was the tenant who unnecessarily wrote lengthy emails to the landlord about the compensation he required to move out. Those emails were unnecessary because the landlord gave repeated assurances that he could stay until the fixed term ended. The rent and expenses for him and one other tenant to stay in the same apartment did not change. There was no loss resulting from three tenants vacating the tenancy. The loss was the landlords.
At the date of hearing the tenant remained in the premises and could do so until the end of the fixed term.
The tenant has not suffered any tangible loss such as loss or damage to property. He is claiming for an intangible loss. It is well established in law that where the loss suffered is intangible, awards must be kept modest. Some degree of anxiety and stress has been considered an inevitable corollary to contracts such as residential tenancies. Virtually any breach brings with it some degree of disappointment and upset, and almost every action could give rise to a claim for intangible loss. It is very difficult to put a price on an intangible, when it is not open to mathematical calculation, and requires some degree of subjective assessment and impression. The primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.
Applicant [name suppressed] v Singh (2022) NZTT Auckland 4315225 is a previous case which suggests appropriate bands where awards are made for emotional harm damages: “ A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $1,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 and upwards.”
I have determined that “A” is an appropriate band in this case. The tenant experienced ‘inconvenience, frustration and annoyance. I have set the award at $500.00 for the period of time from December 2025 to February 2026.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

The tenant claims that the landlord failed to carry out repairs within a reasonable time.
Section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the landlord shall: ‘provide and 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.’
The tenant notified the landlord by email on 5 December that the shower head was dripping, and a balcony parapet panel had been broken by a “gusty windstorm” some weeks before. He was concerned that the broken panel may be a danger to the tenants.
The water dripping from the shower rose did not affect the tenant’s use of the premises. The landlord decided not to have it repaired. The tenant was not paying for water or electricity to heat water. The water was dripping into the shower and not leaking from the shower.
From the evidence it is difficult to establish the urgency needed for the parapet repair. There were no photos of the parapet area to show the damage and how the damage would affect the tenants use of the premises. From the evidence it is difficult to assess whether the damaged panel was a danger to the tenants. None of the tenants were injured before the landlord made the repair.
It was important that the tenant informed the landlord about both the shower and the parapet panel so the landlord could assess if maintenance was required. Because there is insufficient evidence, I cannot make a finding that the landlord failed to maintain the premises within a reasonable time. Has the landlord breached Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)?
In his application the tenant claims that the landlord breached HHS. It is the tenant’s burden to prove his claim. The tenant would prove a claim regarding HHS by providing a report from a qualified contractor who had inspected the premises. There was no evidence provided in support of the tenant’s HHS claim. Therefore the claim must be dismissed. Failed to ensure the tenant’s security.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to control of keys, including a previous occupant retaining access and entering the building and apartment. The tenant claimed that this created a sense of insecurity, because he was living alone.
I am satisfied that the landlord did keep control of the keys. When made aware of a previous tenant still having a key, acted to get the key from that tenant.
There was no intention to commit an unlawful act and therefore exemplary damages cannot be ordered. The claim for other exemplary damages.
The tenant has requested the Tribunal to make other exemplary damages orders. The tenant claimed the following as reasons for exemplary damages: “the landlord’s conduct showed a pattern of unprofessional behaviour and lack of proper regard for legal obligations. There have also been instances where proper notice and standard procedures were not clearly followed.”
I have considered this claim and do not find that the landlord committed unlawful acts that are provided for in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The decision to negotiate with the tenants to change the tenancy was not an unlawful act. There was no evidence provided to the Tribunal to prove that the landlord failed to give ‘proper notice’.
There are no grounds for exemplary damages to be ordered for any of the matters raised by the tenant. Filing Fee
Because the tenant has been partly successful with the claim the filing fee of $28.00 is ordered to be paid by the landlord. Suppression
The tenant has applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Although the tenant has only succeeded with the claim regarding the breach of quiet enjoyment, name suppression is granted. There is no public interest in publishing his name. Ending the tenancy
The tenancy will end in about two weeks. No order is made to end the tenancy earlier. Conclusion and the landlord’s claim
Not all evidence is referred to in this decision however I have considered all the evidence provided by the parties in reaching this decision. The decision reflects the merits and justice of the case. The decision also covers the matters raised in the landlord’s claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5473154 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5473154 — Leaks

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What compensation are you wanting from us?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What compensation are you wanting from us?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions