What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5489530 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is amended to include [head tenant] as an applicant.

How much money was awarded in case 5489530?

Compensation: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5489530?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5489530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13805409-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5489530 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is amended to include [head tenant] as an applicant.

How much money was awarded in case 5489530?

Compensation: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5489530?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5489530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13805409-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5489530 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5489530 — net $928.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$400.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$928.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$928.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5489530 — net $928.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$400.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$928.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$928.00

Order

The application is amended to include [head tenant] as an applicant.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Sanjay and Asha Tapnikar must pay [The tenant/s] $928.00 immediately, as calculated in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 18 June 2026.
[Head tenant] and their partner [Tenant C] were also present at the hearing and gave evidence.
[Tenant A] has applied for compensation and exemplary damages following a delay in repairing a window which broke on 14 February 2026.
Mr Tapnikar says that at the time the damage occurred, [Tenant A] was not a tenant. He says that [Head Tenant] was the “head tenant” and Mr Tapnikar did not know who [Tenant A] was.
The onus is on the applicant to provide the evidence to support his claims.
The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Was [Tenant A] a tenant?
The original written tenancy agreement started on 8 November 2025 for a fixed term. [Head Tenant] is recorded as the Head Tenant. [Tenant C] was and remains a tenant.
The parties agreed that the existing tenants would find further flatmates.
The agreement is for all of the house, not a room-by-room tenancy.
[Tenant A] moved in in January 2026. It was not until after the window broke on 14 February that the landlord was sent an amended written agreement with [Tenant A]’s name on it as well as two other tenants. Mr Tapnikar denies receiving this, but [Tenant C] provided a copy of an email in which he had sent this to the landlord on 20 February 2026.
Mr Tapnikar is quite correct that under section 13 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord must ensure that any tenancy agreement is writing. That does not mean that if there is no written agreement, the Act does not apply. Section 13C says that no tenancy agreement, or variation or renewal of a tenancy agreement, shall be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing.
I accept that at the time the damage occurred, Mr Tapnikar had not met [Tenant A] and did not know that he was living at the premises. He did not have a verbal or implied tenancy agreement with [Tenant A].
He did, however, have a written agreement with [Head Tenant], who was the head tenant. The agreement was for the whole house. Both [Head Tenant] and [Tenant C] communicated with the landlord about the broken window.
And by 17 February, the landlord knew [Tenant A] was a flatmate, and by 20 February he had been sent a written tenancy agreement with [Tenant A]’s name in it.
On a strict application of the law, [Head Tenant] should have brought this application to the Tribunal particularly for the issues arising between 14 February and 17 February. However, if I dismissed the application on that technicality, it would be open to [Head Tenant] to simply file a fresh application, leading to a further hearing.
Section 85 of the Act which says:
Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies.
The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
[Head Tenant] was present at the hearing on 18 June and supported their flatmate’s application and so it is in the interests of justice that the application is amended to include them as an applicant. That approach ensures the fair and expeditious resolution of this dispute and is consistent with the requirement to determine the dispute according to the general principles of the law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, without being bound by technicalities.

Who is responsible for repair of the window?

[Tenant A] says that on the evening of 14 February 2026 he was in his flatmate’s room watching videos. The window of his room was open on a latch. There were other windows open in the house at the time. A gust of wind blew the window in his room away and it broke.
[Tenant C] contacted the landlord on 15 February and told him about it.
Mr Tapnikar says that the damage was caused by the tenant’s carelessness. He says that there was a storm warning for 14 and 15 February and so the tenant should have kept the window closed.
Section 40(2)(a) says that a tenant shall not intentionally or carelessly damage, or permit any other person to damage, the premises. [Head Tenant] is a tenant, and on 14 February, [Tenant A] was a flatmate, and so was a person who was there with [Head Tenant]’s consent
[Tenant A] acknowledges that there was some bad weather but does not believe he acted carelessly. He notes that he and his flatmates were home, and other windows were open, but did not break. He also says that the latch is old and did not secure the window properly.
Without knowing the details of the weather on the evening of 14 February 2026, it is difficult to determine whether or at what point, it was careless to leave a window open, while in the house. I am not satisfied that the damage was more likely than not caused by the careless action of the tenant or flatmate. That means that the tenant is not responsible for the repairs. It is a landlord responsibility.

Did the landlord breach his responsibilities under section 45?

Section 45 says that the landlord must 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.
There is no dispute that the landlord was made aware of the damage to the window on 15 February and it was repaired 7 weeks later on 3 April.
The landlord says that he visited the premises on 15 February. The tenants dispute that, saying that the first time he visited was on 17 February. The landlord says that the tenants were not home on 15 February, but they dispute that. At the hearing, [Tenant C] read from his phone and showed the landlord his phone. The messages show that between 15 and 17 February, [Tenant C] was following up with the landlord, who on 17 February said he would be coming.
The key issue is that the landlord was aware of a broken window and needed to take steps to repair it. He could have asked the tenants to take photos and send them to him. It was not even necessary that he visited the property. He simply needed to organise a glazier. However, the 15 th was a Saturday and so it is not unreasonable that a glazier was not organised until Monday 17 th .
The landlord says that he contacted a number of builder-glaziers for replacement of the broken windowpane and glass. He said that “almost all” of them told him they were very busy at that time of year and the time frame given was somewhere between 2 and 4 months.
On 3 March 2026, [Head Tenant] sent the landlord the following email:
The landlord says that on 3 March he found a builder-glazier who came on 4 March and measured the windowpane. He also offered to close the window up with hard wood, but the tenants had a temporary fix.
He says that he informed [Head Tenant] and [Tenant C] and then flew out of New Zealand. Between 6 and 10 March the landlord followed up with the glazier. It was fixed on 3 April.
In the meantime, on 30 March 2026 [Tenant A] issued the landlord with a 14- day notice to repair the window and asking for a rent reduction.
The landlord did not respond to this. He told the Tribunal that he did not open the email from [Tenant A] because he does not open unsolicited mail and he did not know who [Tenant A] was.
I do not accept the landlord’s explanation for not opening his email. Mr Tapnikar had met [Tenant A] at the flat on or about 17 February. He knew that [Tenant A] was occupying the room with the broken window. The signed tenancy agreement had been sent to him on 20 February. The subject line of the email dated 30 March was headed “Notice to Remedy”. As the landlord, he must have known that this concerned his property. I find that the landlord was being deliberately obtuse and trying to avoid his responsibilities as a landlord.
Added to that, [Tenant C] gave the landlord [Tenant A]’s phone number so that he could communicate with him regarding the glazier’s visit, but Mr Tapnikar refused to contact him.
The landlord says that between 15 February and 3 March almost all of the glaziers told him they were very busy at that time of year and the time frame given was somewhere between 2 and 4 months. Again I find it difficult to accept that in the Wellington region, no glazier was available to visit the property and start the process before 14 April at the earliest.
I also do not accept that between 15 February and 3 March, the landlord could not find a glazier who could visit the property to at least assess the issue and start the process.
I find it more likely than not that the landlord did nothing or very little between 15 February and 3 March, and that it was [Head Tenant]’s email that prompted him to take some action before he went away.
I accept that once the measurements had been undertaken there was some delay that was beyond the landlord’s control. However, I find that the landlord’s lack of action and communication for two weeks between 15 February and 3 March was a clear breach of his obligations under section 45 and amounts to 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.
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.
In this instance the effect of the unlawful act was that his tenants were affected by the lack of a window. [Tenant A] was sleeping in his flatmate’s room. The landlord failed to communicate adequately with the tenants, prompting an email from [Head Tenant] on 3 March. The landlord needs to be reminded of his obligations and I order $500 exemplary damages.
Although the ongoing delay was not the fault of the landlord, nonetheless, the tenants were affected by the loss of window in one bedroom. The tenants are paying $1,000 a week for the use of the whole property and that use was impeded by the broken window for a period of 7 weeks. I order $400 compensation for the inconvenience. This was compounded by the landlord’s disregard for [Tenant A]’s correspondence and refusal to communicate with him and so it is appropriate that the landlord pays some compensation for distress.
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded, I order reimbursement of the filing fee and name suppression.
Mr Tapnikar is encouraged to consult Tenancy Services and/or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 for advice about his responsibilities including the requirements of a tenancy agreement.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5489530 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5489530 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Who is responsible for repair of the window?

Did the landlord breach his responsibilities under section 45?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Who is responsible for repair of the window?

Did the landlord breach his responsibilities under section 45?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions