What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5506840 about?

The tribunal order states: The Icon Group (2014) Limited must pay [The tenant/s] and

How much money was awarded in case 5506840?

Compensation: Loss Of Use: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5506840?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5506840?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13889489-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5506840 about?

The tribunal order states: The Icon Group (2014) Limited must pay [The tenant/s] and

How much money was awarded in case 5506840?

Compensation: Loss Of Use: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5506840?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5506840?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13889489-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 419, 15-31 Wellesley Street West, Auckland CBD, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5506840 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5506840 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of use	$500.00	Loss of use
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$500.00

Both parties attended the hearing on 13 July 2026. The tenant [The tenant/s] attended via teleconference. Tuscancity Property Management Limited attended via teleconference briefly as the property manager. Ms Barham attended in person for the owner landlord.

At the beginning of the hearing, it was clarified that Tuscancity Property Management Limited was no longer managing the property. Accordingly, the hearing proceeded between the tenant and the owner landlord only.

The tenancy was from 29 October 2024 until 26 April 2026.

At the end of the tenancy, the tenant applied for compensation and exemplary damages for the following: a. Failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time; b. Greywater overflowing incident; c. Unreasonable viewing times and lack of notice for pest control; and d. Refund of the filing fee. Failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.

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) RTA.

The tenant paid the bond of $1,780.00 at the beginning of the tenancy. However, the bond was not paid with the Bond Centre until 9 January 2026.

Ordinarily, this would be a clear delay by the landlord and a breach that would warrant the awarding of exemplary damages.

However, Elliott Hotel Auckland had been operating under the “hotel exception” under the RTA until 12 September 2025 when the Tribunal found that the exception did not apply. After considering legal options, the Elliott Hotel Auckland transitioned into an RTA-compliant residence complex from the end of 2025.

I accept that there was no intentional delay with lodging the bond with the Bond Centre in the circumstances.

The delay between 12 September 2025, the time for consideration of legal options and implementation of RTA compliance measures have been adequate.

I do not grant any exemplary damages for this claim. Greywater overflowing incident

The tenant complained that the landlord did not provide the tenant with temporary accommodation when greywater had overflowed from the kitchen sink. There were photos of the greywater overflowing into the cutlery drawers and flooding the surrounding areas.

The landlord sent a cleaner for this but the cleaner that turned up only had a mop and a bucket for standard cleaning and not for proper deep cleaning.

The tenant was unable to communicate the need for deep cleaning to the cleaner who came due to the cleaner’s lack of English.

The tenant claimed that this was a huge health and safety hazard that created an unhealthy environment especially for the female tenant who was pregnant at the time.

Under section 45 RTA, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

Breaching this 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.

I do not find that the landlord had intentionally neglected any particular care that resulted with greywater overflowing in the kitchen. Arranging a cleaner soon after the this has happened was also an adequate response.

However, it seems that there was miscommunication between the landlord and the cleaner as to what was required. As a result, the tenant had lost enjoyment of the premises for a period of time.

I find that a sum in the vicinity of one week’s rent is adequate compensation for the loss of use of the kitchen and any associated cleaning undertaken by the tenant.

Accordingly, I order the landlord to pay the tenant $500.00 as compensation for the loss of full enjoyment of the premises. Unreasonable viewing times and lack of notice for pest control

The tenant claimed that the landlord had been unreasonable with viewing times and there had been a lack of notice for pest control.

The landlord provided email correspondences confirming that there were no viewings for subsequent tenants that did not adhere with the times sought by the tenant.

It seems that there were efforts between the parties to get the timing right, but ultimately the landlord only had viewings at times allowed by the tenant.

In relation to the lack of notice for pest control, it seems that it was a one-off incident for which the landlord apologised for when it was raised as an issue by the tenant afterwards.

Although, a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises, exemplary damages can only be awarded in circumstances where this breach amounts to “harassment”.

I do not find that there was any particular pattern of behaviour directed at the tenant for it to amount to harassment.

I dismiss this claim. Filing fee reimbursement

Filing fee can be reimbursed if the applicant party is wholly or substantially successful with the application.

As this is not such case, I do not order for any reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5506840 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of use	$500.00	Loss of use
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$500.00