What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5473699 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 5473699?

Compensation: $1,892.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5473699?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5473699?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13653905-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5473699 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 5473699?

Compensation: $1,892.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5473699?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5473699?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13653905-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

454A Stokes Valley Road, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5473699 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5473699 — net $1,920.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,892.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,920.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,920.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Waylon And Pei Pei Fong must pay [The tenant/s] $1,920.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Nui represented the landlord.
The tenants have filed an application. They want compensation and exemplary damages because they were not told that the roof was being replaced and they were inconvenienced for the three months it took to install the new roof. The parties had agreed to a $1000 dollar settlement last week but the payment was not made by the end of the week so the tenants rescinded their agreement and we had a hearing. The questions I have to decide include: • Was there a breach of the duty to maintain? • Was there a loss of amenity?

Was there a breach of the duty to maintain?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). This section requires landlords to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Landlords are also required to act within a reasonable time frame. 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.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. The tenants said they had not experienced any leaks so it was a surprise when the roofing contractors turned up. There was no breach of the duty to maintain here.
The tenants had to attend to leaks after the roof was removed. They put out buckets and towels, ran their dehumidifier to dry the flooring and cleaned to get rid of the smell. They asked if the carpets could have commercial cleaning because of a smell and to protect the asthmatics in the family. The landlord did a routine inspection on 9 March, after the roof was installed, and could not see any reason to get the carpets cleaned. I do not have any evidence showing there is still a need for commercial cleaning. I do not find there was a breach by the landlord.
The tenants said two glass panels were cracked by the roofers. These are outside and do not affect the tenants’ use of the property. I find there is no breach of the RTA here.
The tenants said they had to check the section for metal filings every time the roofers left. They also said there was debris inside the house which meant extra cleaning. I have been provided with three photos showing a small amount of debris on 10 December and metal filings and a piece of plastic on 12 February. These three photos do not prove there was an ongoing issue. The tenants have not proved there was a breach of section 45 RTA.
On 14 December, during the installation period, the tenants emailed and asked for a light fitting to be repaired because the work on the roof caused bits of glass to fall from the light onto the lounge floor. This meant the tenants could not use the lounge while the workers were on the roof because they were worried glass would fall on someone. The tenants followed up at the end of January and the landlord arranged for a replacement light to be installed 13 days later. I find there was a delay in arranging for the light to be replaced. The tenants have proved there was an unreasonable delay, which is a breach of section 45 RTA.
I do not find the delay in replacing the light fitting to be significant. The problem only happened while the roofers were there. Sorting the problem was delayed by a change of property manager and by the Christmas holiday period. I do not find the landlord should pay compensation. I do not find I should award exemplary damage because there was no intention by the landlord not to repair. The claims relating to a failure to maintain are dismissed.
I find also there was no breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. This claim is dismissed.

Was there a loss of amenity?

The tenants have asked for compensation because they could not use the house as they intended. I have considered the submissions and the evidence and I find the landlord should pay compensation because of the loss of amenity. I allow compensation in the amount of $154 a week from 19 November 2025 to 12 February 2026, which is 12 weeks and two days. This amount seems fair to me because it seems likely the tenants were not told the landlord would be replacing the roof, they could not park their cars as expected, they could not use the deck as expected, they could not use the lounge when the roofers were there, and they had to deal with leaks and wet carpet. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
There is 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 tenants’ names will be suppressed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords pay compensation.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5473699 — net $1,920.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,892.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,920.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,920.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Waylon And Pei Pei Fong must pay [The tenant/s] $1,920.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Nui represented the landlord.
The tenants have filed an application. They want compensation and exemplary damages because they were not told that the roof was being replaced and they were inconvenienced for the three months it took to install the new roof. The parties had agreed to a $1000 dollar settlement last week but the payment was not made by the end of the week so the tenants rescinded their agreement and we had a hearing. The questions I have to decide include: • Was there a breach of the duty to maintain? • Was there a loss of amenity?

Was there a breach of the duty to maintain?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). This section requires landlords to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Landlords are also required to act within a reasonable time frame. 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.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. The tenants said they had not experienced any leaks so it was a surprise when the roofing contractors turned up. There was no breach of the duty to maintain here.
The tenants had to attend to leaks after the roof was removed. They put out buckets and towels, ran their dehumidifier to dry the flooring and cleaned to get rid of the smell. They asked if the carpets could have commercial cleaning because of a smell and to protect the asthmatics in the family. The landlord did a routine inspection on 9 March, after the roof was installed, and could not see any reason to get the carpets cleaned. I do not have any evidence showing there is still a need for commercial cleaning. I do not find there was a breach by the landlord.
The tenants said two glass panels were cracked by the roofers. These are outside and do not affect the tenants’ use of the property. I find there is no breach of the RTA here.
The tenants said they had to check the section for metal filings every time the roofers left. They also said there was debris inside the house which meant extra cleaning. I have been provided with three photos showing a small amount of debris on 10 December and metal filings and a piece of plastic on 12 February. These three photos do not prove there was an ongoing issue. The tenants have not proved there was a breach of section 45 RTA.
On 14 December, during the installation period, the tenants emailed and asked for a light fitting to be repaired because the work on the roof caused bits of glass to fall from the light onto the lounge floor. This meant the tenants could not use the lounge while the workers were on the roof because they were worried glass would fall on someone. The tenants followed up at the end of January and the landlord arranged for a replacement light to be installed 13 days later. I find there was a delay in arranging for the light to be replaced. The tenants have proved there was an unreasonable delay, which is a breach of section 45 RTA.
I do not find the delay in replacing the light fitting to be significant. The problem only happened while the roofers were there. Sorting the problem was delayed by a change of property manager and by the Christmas holiday period. I do not find the landlord should pay compensation. I do not find I should award exemplary damage because there was no intention by the landlord not to repair. The claims relating to a failure to maintain are dismissed.
I find also there was no breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. This claim is dismissed.

Was there a loss of amenity?

The tenants have asked for compensation because they could not use the house as they intended. I have considered the submissions and the evidence and I find the landlord should pay compensation because of the loss of amenity. I allow compensation in the amount of $154 a week from 19 November 2025 to 12 February 2026, which is 12 weeks and two days. This amount seems fair to me because it seems likely the tenants were not told the landlord would be replacing the roof, they could not park their cars as expected, they could not use the deck as expected, they could not use the lounge when the roofers were there, and they had to deal with leaks and wet carpet. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
There is 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 tenants’ names will be suppressed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords pay compensation.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5473699 — Tenancy dispute at 454A Stokes Valley Road, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5473699 — Tenancy dispute at 454A Stokes Valley Road, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach of the duty to maintain?

Was there a loss of amenity?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach of the duty to maintain?

Was there a loss of amenity?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions