What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5542901 about?

The tribunal order states: Fraser Flynn Limited as agent for Hy Trust and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5542901?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5542901?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5542901?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14172577-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5542901 about?

The tribunal order states: Fraser Flynn Limited as agent for Hy Trust and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5542901?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5542901?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5542901?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14172577-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 1, 63A Hanrahan Street, Upper Riccarton, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5542901 — Leaks

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 31 August 2026. Mr Fraser and Ms Lennon represented the landlord.

I issued a decision on the landlord’s application on 1 September 2026. I granted the landlord possession of the premises on 8 September 2026 since the tenancy had been validly terminated on notice.

I decided one aspect of the tenant’s application in that order. I dismissed her application to have the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy declared retaliatory and her application for an order setting it aside. I adjourned the balance of the tenant’s application.

Both parties provided a large amount of documentary evidence in support of their respective positions. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Background

This boarding house tenancy is well known to the Tribunal; there have been 3 previous applications by the parties with orders dated 15 January 2026 1 ; the 23 February 2026 2 ; and 11 November 2025 3 .

In my decision dated 23 February 2026 I noted: This is a tenancy that should end by agreement. The parties should work towards that. From what the Tribunal has observed, nothing positive can result from the tenancy continuing, either for the tenant or for the landlord.

Despite that observation, the tenancy continued and the fractious relationship between this tenant, between her and the other tenants, and between her and the landlord continued.

The tenant made complaints to the Christchurch City Council (CCC) and to the Tenancy Compliance Investigation Team (TCIT) relating to whether the boarding house was compliant for use. CCC confirmed that the premises were not consented for use as a boarding house, and it provided the landlord with a timeframe for compliance. If the timeframe were not met CCC advised that the boarding house operation must cease.

The landlord, unable to meet the compliance demands, decided to terminate the tenancies of all the boarding house tenants (6). The landlord decided to offer the premises for rent as a single use dwelling which did not require the same compliance as a boarding house, something it had done in the past.

All the tenants accepted the notices to terminate the tenancy (28-day notices were given) and they vacated the premises. This tenant refused to do so. 1 See [2026] NZTT 5418669; 5420695 2 See [2026] NZTT 5428293; 5427338 3 See [2025] NZTT 5363482 (a tenant application only)

As I have noted, I have issued a decision granting the landlord possession of the premises as its notice to terminate the tenancy was validly given and was not a retaliatory notice.

I must now determine the remaining issues on the tenant’s application. Issues

The issues for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Did the landlord commit any breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) for which the Tribunal should award compensation and/or exemplary damages? •Should the Tribunal make a market rent determination? •Is the tenant entitled to a full rent refund because the premises were unlawful residential premises? •Should the Tribunal make a bond order? Law

Section 25 RTA provides that the Tribunal may reduce rent to an amount that it considers is in line with the market rent if it is satisfied that the rent payable exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount.

Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).

Section 78A RTA sets out the orders the Tribunal may make relating to unlawful residential premises. Compensation and exemplary damages

In my previous order dated 23 February 2026 I set out the legal principles that relate to compensation and exemplary damages. I will do so again, this time more fully.

The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.

Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.

In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 4 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.

Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.

In Birch, the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. 4 [2020] NZDC 17667 Discussion Did the landlord commit any breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) for which the Tribunal should award compensation and/or exemplary damages?

The tenant has raised several issues under this head of claim. She alleges the discriminatory enforcement of house rules; retaliation following legitimate complaints; safety and maintenance defects; failure to manage noise and disruption by other tenants which affected her PTSD; maintenance failures and biohazard risks; maintenance delays and facility downgrades; failure to act on unauthorised occupancy; beaches of her quiet enjoyment; financial ledger errors; and intimidation and attempted non-judicial eviction.

The tenant has ‘thrown the book’ at the landlord by describing incidents in forensic detail.

I do not find the tenants’ claims proved for these reasons: a. Although the premises were unlawful for use as a boarding house and therefore there was a breach of the safety regulations, there was no intentional breach by the landlord. Mr Fraser’s evidence establishes that the landlord believed the premises to be compliant at all times based on its past experiences and an audit by MBIE in 2025 which identified no issues with any of the boarding house premises it managed. b. MBIE advised the landlord at that time 5 : Overall, we found that Fraser Flynn demonstrated a high level of compliance and were pleased with both the processes currently in place and Fraser Flynn’s attitude and cooperation during the assessment. c. To award exemplary damages, the landlord (in this case) must have acted with intent, and there must have been an effect on the tenant. Neither was the case here. Fraser Flynn was at best negligent by not ensuring compliance, but did not act with intent (which means, it did not turn its might to non- compliance with safety regulations and deliberately set about to commit an unlawful act). d. Negligence is not sufficient for the Tribunal to award exemplary damages. Also, there was no objective effect on the tenant. The premises were quite new, modern, well maintained, and an attractive place to live. So much so, that the tenant would not vacate even when the tenancy was (validly) terminated and did not act on the Tribunal’s previously clear indication that the tenancy should end because she and the other tenants could not get along. 5 See email dated 18 November 2025 (Page 219 of landlord’s bundle) e. The landlord has provided evidence of the repairs and maintenance work undertaken during the tenancy, including the sewage pump alarm, the toilet cistern plumbing, and the hot water cylinder. I do not find that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. f. Some issues raised, such as the repair to the front door latch/lock, were addressed previously by the Tribunal. There was no objective breach by the landlord of its statutory responsibilities. The landlord also ensured that issues about the cleanliness of the communal areas were dealt with promptly with reminders sent to tenants and tasks added to the cleaner’s list of jobs. This too was an issue addressed previously. I am satisfied that the landlord attended to its repair and maintenance responsibilities in a timely and professional manner. g. The landlord acted on complaints that another tenant had an unauthorised guest and took all reasonable steps including issuing a 14-day breach notice to that tenant and conducting an inspection. h. The landlord took all reasonable steps to address issues raised by this tenant against other tenants. The evidence does not establish that the landlord acted in a discriminatory manner towards this tenant or intentionally caused her emotional harm. i. Alleged breaches of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by the other boarding house tenants were addressed in a past order. The landlord did not permit other tenants to interfere with this tenant’s peace, comfort or privacy. It took all the steps it reasonably could. j. The administrative error in the rent ledger corrected by crediting $38.85 to the tenant’s rent account was just that – an error. Mr Fraser apologised for that. It is not a matter that requires sanction by the Tribunal. k. I do not find proved the allegation that the landlord tried to evict the tenant unlawfully. The landlord attended the premises on the expiry of the 28-day notice as it was entitled to. The landlord took photos for evidence since the tenant had not vacated the tenancy. Only the communal areas were accessed by the landlord, not the tenant’s room. The landlord did not unlawfully enter the premises, nor was there any attempt made to evict the tenant. Is the tenant entitled to a full rent refund because the premises were unlawful residential premises?

The landlord accepts that the premises were not consented for use as a boarding house. Mr Fraser said that the unlawful nature of the premises was to an extent a technicality since the premises had previously been rented to a group of 6 students lawfully (not as a boarding house) and will be offered for rent again on that basis.

I do not accept that the regulatory requirements were merely technicalities. However, I do accept from the landlord’s evidence that the premises were of a high quality, well maintained and well presented. That the tenant has shown a determination to remain residing there reinforces the Tribunal’s observation.

Section 78A RTA provides the Tribunal with a discretion as to how much rent should be deducted from the total rent paid and refunded to the tenant.

This is not a case where the landlord acted egregiously and with disregard for the law. The landlord believed the premises to be compliant for use as a boarding house, it accepts that the premises are not compliant for that use, and it took immediate and appropriate steps to ensure that the boarding house operation ceased.

Given the overall quality of the premises and the fact that the tenant has remained living there despite the previous Tribunal applications and the more recent termination of the tenancy, and the offer the landlord previously made to find other premises for her, I order a refund of rent equivalent to 5% of the rent paid. In terms of the section 78(4) RTA criteria that means a refund of all the rent less a deduction of 95% because of the nature of the premises.

Should the Tribunal make a market rent determination?

The tenant considers that the landlord increased her rent by $20.00 per week when other tenants received an increase of $10.00 per week and that raised her rent to a higher level when historically it had always been $10.00 less that the other upstairs rooms. She alleges that the increase did not match market rent including for other rooms in other premises advertised by this landlord for $300.00 per week.

Both parties produced evidence addressing market rents. The landlord also provided a breakdown of the rents for the other rooms in this boarding house. All but 1 (which was due to be reviewed but was not increased before the tenant vacated) were the same or higher than the rent the tenant paid for her room.

Before the Tribunal can make a market rent determination and reduce rent to what is in line with market rent, the applicant must show that the rent payable exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount.

Having reviewed the evidence both parties provided, I am satisfied that the rent increase for this tenant’s room was in line with market rent and did not exceed the market rent by a substantial amount.

I dismiss this part of the tenant’s application.

Should the Tribunal make a bond order?

When the Tribunal heard the applications, the tenancy was still live. It ordered the bond to remain at the Bond Centre in case there were end of tenancy issues.

If the parties have not reached an agreement about the payment of the bond, either party may apply for an order: the tenant for the payment of the bond now that the tenancy has ended, and the landlord for costs from the bond if it considers that the tenant has not complied with her statutory responsibilities when the tenancy ended.

I make no bond order currently. Result

The landlord will pay the tenant $1,450.00 immediately which is a 5% refund of rent (give or take) which the Tribunal considers is a fair deduction taking account of the nature of the premises.

The tenant’s application for compensation and/or exemplary damages is dismissed.

The tenant’s application for a market rent determination is dismissed.

The bond will remain at the Bond Centre until either the parties agree that it can be paid, or until the tribunal makes an order (if there are applications).

I make no order reimbursing the filing fee. The application is only successful in small part. Name suppression

In previous orders the parties have successfully applied for name suppression.

On this application I make no name suppression orders. The tenant has succeeded in small part only (her claim was for $58,480.00; she has been awarded $1,450.00). The landlord has not been fully successful in its defence.

Reasons