What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5486292 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 5486292?

Being: $640.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $103.85 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $463.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5486292?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5486292?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13674063-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5486292 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 5486292?

Being: $640.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $103.85 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $463.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5486292?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5486292?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13674063-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

5 Essex Place, Milson, Palmerston North 4414 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5486292 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5486292. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
being	$640.00		being
in rent arrears and	$463.85		in rent arrears and
in compensation. 4. The tenant therefore owes the landlord	$103.85		in compensation. 4. The tenant therefore owes the landlord
Bond		$2,560.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5486292. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
being	$640.00		being
in rent arrears and	$463.85		in rent arrears and
in compensation. 4. The tenant therefore owes the landlord	$103.85		in compensation. 4. The tenant therefore owes the landlord
Bond		$2,560.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The tenant must pay the landlord $1,103.85 being $640.00 in rent arrears and $463.85 as a break fee.
The landlord must pay the tenant $1,000.00 in compensation.
The tenant therefore owes the landlord $103.85 which is to be paid from the bond.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $103.85 [The tenant/s]: $2,456.15

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each party must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
The Tribunal must also have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The landlord’s claims
The landlord’s claim was for rent arrears and a fee charged for breaking the fixed term tenancy and finding a new tenant.
This was a fixed term tenancy that was due to end on 27 November 2026. The tenant wanted to end the tenancy because of issues discussed further in this Order. She notified the landlord who arranged to find another tenant. The new tenancy started on 8 April 2026.
Because the tenancy had ended by mutual agreement prior to the hearing, the tenant’s application to reduce the fixed term tenancy is moot and so the tenant’s application under section 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) is dismissed.
As discussed at the hearing, the landlord is under no obligation to agree to end a fixed term tenancy before its termination date. In this case, the landlord was able to secure a suitable tenant within a short period after only one viewing. The tenant is liable for the rent through to the start of the new tenancy. The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
The landlord has provided an invoice for advertising the premises, holding a viewing, organising a second viewing that was cancelled, and vetting the prospective tenants. The amount charged is reasonable and is at the lower end of similar charges which the Tribunal sees which reflects the fact that the landlord was able to find a suitable tenant after one viewing. The Tribunal is satisfied that the amount invoiced is reasonable for the necessary attendances by the landlord and is properly payable by the tenant.
The Tribunal confirms that the tenant was correct to refuse to pay any amount until the services contained in the invoice had been completed and the tenant could be satisfied that they were fair and reasonable. The tenant’s claims
The tenant’s claim was for compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord failing to maintain the premises. See section 45(1)(b) RTA.
Breaching this obligation 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 RTA.
The parties agreed on the following evidence: a. The vertical blinds in the lobby were unable to be closed flat. b. There was a panel from the vertical blind in the lounge missing. c. A panel in the bedroom vertical blind was broken and unaffixed. This meant that if the blinds were opened, the panel would fall out and would need to be fixed back in place when they were closed again. d. There was no key to the padlock to one of the outside sheds and this was not supplied or remedied during the tenancy. e. At the start of the tenancy there was a residual smell in the premises caused by the cooking of spicey foods by the previous tenant. f. The waste disposal unit smelt. g. The tenant complained of cockroaches at the premises from mid-February 2026. The landlord’s contractor inspected the premises on 3 March and sprayed them on 10 March 2026.
The tenant gave evidence as follows: a. The inability of the blinds in the lobby to close meant that this space was open to view from the street. She could not make this area private. It was an area which she needed to pass through in her usual use of the premises. b. The missing panel in the lounge blind meant that she could not be completely private in this room as well as it looked out onto the street. c. Because of the difficulty in drawing and opening the blind in the bedroom because the broken panel would fall out and required reaffixing, she left the bedroom blinds closed. d. She had smelled the strong cooking smells on inspecting the premises. However, when she moved in and was living there, the smell was “horrible” and permeated the kitchen, lounge and a wardrobe where the previous tenant/cook must have stored their clothes. She asked the landlord to “deep clean” the premises and give her reimbursement for the cleaning products she had used in trying to remove the smell. She also asked that the rangehood filters be changed and that a curtain from the kitchen be cleaned. After about two and a half months the smell had dissipated but during the period it was a significant impediment to her enjoyment of the premises. e. She tried cleaning the waste disposal unit with baking soda and white vinegar but this had no effect. f. Despite having asked the landlord to fix the blinds, the lock on the shed to allow access and clean the waste disposal unit, they remained in the same condition at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord gave evidence as follows: a. The landlord inspected the blinds when requested by the tenant. However, the broken parts of the blinds could not be replaced due to age. The landlord was considering replacing the blinds but had not made a decision by the end of the tenancy. b. The cooking smells were present at the start of the tenancy and the premises were reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord expected the smells to gradually dissipate and do not believe that the smell was overpowering or present throughout the house. c. The landlord believed that the waste disposal unit was reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy but accepted that it required further investigation which it was arranging when the tenant advised that she wished to leave the tenancy. d. The landlord arranged to have the cockroach issue dealt with by a professional in a timely manner. e. The landlord did not give these issues a high priority as they believed they were not urgent. Discussion and decision
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that: a. The tenant suffered from an absence of privacy because of the absence of functioning blinds in the lobby and the lounge. The tenant was inconvenienced by the faulty operation of the blind in the bedroom. The installed blinds did not function properly. Blinds which fulfilled their function was something the tenant was entitled to and of which she was deprived throughout the tenancy. b. The landlord failed to provide access to the shed. c. The tenant’s right to the enjoyment of the premises was negatively impacted by the smell of spicey cooking during the two and a half months claimed by the tenant, and also by the smell from the waste disposal unit. The tenant was entitled to occupy premises free from unpleasant odours which could have been remedied by the landlord. It is unreasonable to expect a tenant to eradicate or wait out the smells left behind by previous tenants. d. The landlord responded to the tenant’s complaint regarding cockroaches in a reasonably timely manner. As discussed at the hearing, it is not always the landlord’s responsibility to deal with cockroaches. On the evidence before the Tribunal, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the landlord had an obligation to act. The landlord prudently and responsibly did so nonetheless.
The Tribunal concludes that the tenant is entitled to compensation for the blind issues, the residual cooking smell, the failure to address the issue with the waste disposal unit and the lack of access to the shed.
The tenant has not suffered any tangible loss such as loss or damage to property. She 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.
Adjudicator Kee has proposed three bands for the assessment of general damages which the Tribunal has adopted in prior decisions and which are useful in informing the Tribunal’s decision making.
The facts of this case fall into the lower band as having caused inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, and disappointment. That band is for awards of between $200.00 to $2,000.00. Having considered both parties’ evidence it is appropriate to award the tenant a sum of $1,000.00 to acknowledge the tenant’s unpleasant experience and her growing frustration with a lack of communication regarding what was being done to remedy her complaints. This sum includes reimbursement for the cleaning products she purchased.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that on the facts of this case that the landlord has committed an unlawful act and that their actions or inactions justify the award of exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the landlord intended to breach its obligation to repair. It took steps to assess the situation and its options. It did not act promptly in keeping the tenant informed of the process it was following. b. The repairs required were not urgent. While they were not remedied during the tenancy, the most important, the repair of the blinds, will likely require the expensive option of replacement. It was not unreasonable that the landlord took some time to decide on the appropriate course of action. c. There is an element of subjectivity to the issue of smells and therefore the urgency of dealing with them. The landlord was aware of the issue but appears to have not assessed accurately its impact on the tenant and believed that it would naturally resolve itself. d. The landlord did attend to the repair of other items in a timely manner. For instance, the landlord did deal with the cockroach issue for which it did not necessarily have liability. e. The failure to allow access to the shed was not a significant issue to the tenant. It was however an instance of the landlord failing to follow up on a reasonable request of the tenant. f. For breaches such as these, there is not a need for public deterrence and punishment of the landlord. g. The tenant’s interest is adequately addressed by the compensation awarded and it would not be just to award exemplary damages.
The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Filing fee
As both parties have been substantially successful in their applications, it is appropriate that both be granted name suppression and that each accepts responsibility for their own filing fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5486292 — Rent arrears at 5 Essex Place, Milson, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5486292 — Rent arrears at 5 Essex Place, Milson, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions