What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4946313?

The tribunal order states: Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities must pay Beverly Anne Lind and Michael

How much money was awarded in case 4946313?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $5,000.00 awarded to tenant; Costs: $15,085.99 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $5,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4946313?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4946313?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11921616-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4946313?

The tribunal order states: Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities must pay Beverly Anne Lind and Michael

How much money was awarded in case 4946313?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $5,000.00 awarded to tenant; Costs: $15,085.99 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $5,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4946313?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4946313?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11921616-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2B Union Street, Hikurangi 0114 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4946313 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4946313 — net $28,512.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain, failure to comply with healthy homes standards (drainage	$5,400.00	79. Having regard to those considerations, I will award $5,000.00.
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment	$3,000.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Compensation: Inference with, and damage to, belongings	$5,000.00	Inference with, and damage to, belongings
Costs	$15,085.99	Costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	97. My finding is that it is appropriate to make an award above the “usual” 40-70% range having regard to the factors detailed above.
Net award	$28,512.99
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$28,512.99

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4946313 — net $28,512.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain, failure to comply with healthy homes standards (drainage	$5,400.00	79. Having regard to those considerations, I will award $5,000.00.
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment	$3,000.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Compensation: Inference with, and damage to, belongings	$5,000.00	Inference with, and damage to, belongings
Costs	$15,085.99	Costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	97. My finding is that it is appropriate to make an award above the “usual” 40-70% range having regard to the factors detailed above.
Net award	$28,512.99
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$28,512.99

Order

Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities must pay Beverly Anne Lind and Michael Killet Lind $28,512.99 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began in March 2022.
Mr & Mrs Lind are a retired couple in their early eighties. They were previously in a Kāinga Ora home in Kamo. In early 2022, Kāinga Ora offered them this property in Hikurangi. The property had a large 3-bay garage and a large section. The garage was an attractive feature of the property for Mr & Mrs Lind. It could accommodate both of their cars. It was lockable and it had power to it, so Mrs Lind could keep her mobility scooter there.
The entry inspection report noted that the concrete driveway was breaking up.
Soon after they moved in, the Linds’ Tenancy Manager informed them that Kāinga Ora intended to sub-divide the property and put a new house on the back section, and that the garage would be taken away. Mr & Mrs Lind were understandably concerned about this, but the Tenancy Manager told them that the work would not take place for several years.
Within a few weeks of the start of the tenancy, the garage flooded in heavy rain, causing damage to Mr & Mrs Lind’s belongings.
In April 2022, Kāinga Ora sent a letter to Mr & Mrs Lind advising them that a survey was going to take place. There was no other information about the sub- division in that letter.
There was no more communication to Mr & Mrs Lind about Kāinga Ora’s plans with the property.
On 16 February 2023, Kāinga Ora sent Mr & Mrs Lind a letter asking them to attend a meeting on 21 February. The letter stated: We have had discussions about possible changes in your community. We would like to meet and talk to you about the plans we have for your property. I would also like to discuss and complete a “Variation to tenancy agreement” with you, as part of the development.
At the meeting, Mr & Mrs Lind were shown a proposed written variation to the tenancy agreement, and the subdivision plans. They signed the variation.
In early March 2023, contractors arrived and began demolishing the garage. Mr & Mrs Linds’ cars and personal belongings were moved to the ‘back half’ of the garage.
A relocatable house was brought on to the back section in early April.
The remainder of the garage was demolished in late May.
Mrs Lind had an accident on the driveway with her scooter due to the uneven surface. She broke her shoulder, and the scooter was damaged. Mrs Lind had another fall on the driveway on a different occasion and injured her other shoulder. Kāinga Ora’s Tenancy Manager also fell on the driveway.
The subdivision was completed in October 2023.
Mr & Mrs Lind filed this application on 27 July 2024. The application sought compensation and exemplary damage for breach of quiet enjoyment, and for damage to their belongings.
After the first hearing in October 2024, the Linds amended their application to include compensation and exemplary damages for failure to maintain (driveway, garage flooding) and legal costs.
The second hearing took place in May 2025. Quiet enjoyment Law
Tenants are entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord. 1 Premises includes any part of the premises including land and appurtenances. 2
A tenancy agreement can be varied, in writing, with the consent of both the landlord and the tenant. 3 Discussion
The garage and the back section were part of the premises.
There was nothing in the tenancy agreement, and nothing in tenancy law generally, that gave Kāinga Ora the power to take away part of the premises.
Kāinga Ora’s legal power to do this depends entirely on the variation that the Linds signed on 21 February 2023.
At the first hearing on 16 October 2024, Kāinga Ora’s representative Ms Gray stated that there were multiple meetings with the Linds between March 2022 and February 2023 and that the Linds were fully informed of Kāinga Ora’s plans with the property. I noted this in my adjournment order dated 30 October 2024. Part of the reason for the adjournment was to allow Kāinga Ora the opportunity to gather and provide evidence of those meetings.
At the second hearing on 9 May 2025, Kāinga Ora acknowledged that there is no record of any such meetings or any communication with the Linds about the property development between March 2022 and February 2023, apart from a letter on 7 April 2022 informing the Linds that a survey was going to take place. The letter stated “the survey will be used to help us decide what we can build on the land in the future so some more people can live in quality homes in this community” but it contained no other information about Kāinga Ora’s plans.
Mr Kask was Kāinga Ora’s Advisor Customer Liaison for the project. Mr Kask gave evidence at the 9 May hearing. Mr Kask said that he began in that role in 1 Section 39(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 2 RTA 3 Section 13B(1) RTA January 2023. He explained that his role was to act as liaison between the contractors and the tenants.
Mr Kask was at the meeting with the Linds on 21 February 2023. He brought the variation for the Linds to sign, and the sub-division plans. Mr Kask said that going into that meeting he believed that the Linds were fully aware of the sub- division. In his written statement he states that he “visited the Linds to confirm the Infill Project was going to start and contactors would be onsite from 1 March [...] We also got the Variation to Tenancy Agreement signed”.
In fact, as noted above, the Linds were not aware of the project apart from a vague comment near the start of their tenancy that Kāinga Ora may develop the property some time in the future.
Mr & Mrs Lind described their experience of that meeting as follows: They produced plans showing the subdivision by which legally we had been cut off from the back part of the land we had taken under the Tenancy Agreement. We didn’t know that we had any rights in the matter. I, Mike, asked if the document that was produced for us to sign varying our Tenancy Agreement from the year before was something that we needed a lawyer to look at. We were told no, that it was “just a variation”. [...] Thinking back, that we agreed to it on the day was down to their self- importance, their confidence in their powers (all the documents already prepared), our acceptance that they had the power, and that we were powerless. They took advantage of us. We don’t say we didn’t understand it. We were overpowered. We thought we couldn’t refuse them.
Mr Kask denied the allegation that the Linds asked whether they should have a lawyer look at the variation and that he said it was not necessary.
I am satisfied that: a. Kāinga Ora failed to follow its own process by not meeting with the Linds and providing them with information about the project, including the timing of it and the implications for the Linds (in particular, the loss of the garage). b. At the meeting on 21 February 2023 Mr Kask mistakenly understood that those prior meetings had taken place. He assumed that Mr & Mrs Lind knew about the project and its implications and that they had several months’ worth of opportunity to think about it and take advice about it. He was there merely to “confirm the In Fill project was going to start” and to formalise the paperwork. c. There was an imbalance of power and knowledge at that meeting. Mr & Mrs Lind did not know what was “normal” and that what was happening was not normal. They did not know that they could question or challenge what was put in front of them, or ask for more time to consider it. d. This does not mean that their consent to the variation is vitiated. Mr & Mrs Lind are adults with full capacity, able to make decisions and enter into binding agreements. There is in fact another Kāinga Ora house where the Linds’ back section and garage used to be. That cannot be undone. However, in my view the Linds’ consent was tainted. It was obtained through a flawed process. It was not fully informed. A variation of the magnitude that Kāinga Ora were proposing requires more than one brief meeting to consider. e. The storage shed that Kāinga Ora provided to Mr & Mrs Lind after the subdivision is a lesser amenity than the original garage. It is substantially smaller. It cannot accommodate their vehicles. There is no power supply to it, so Mrs Lind cannot safely store and charge her mobility scooter in it.
My finding is that Kāinga Ora’s actions amounted to an unlawful interference with the Linds’ right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.
I address the issue of damages below. Tenants’ belongings in garage
The variation states that
On the effective date vacant possession of the part of the section indicated in the attached drawings and marked as ‘A’ will be relinquished to Kāinga Ora. Kāinga Ora hereby consent to the relinquishment.
From the effective date the boundaries of the Tenant’s tenancy are as indicated in the attached drawings and marked ’B’. [...]
This Variation to the Tenancy Agreement will take effect on the effective date. The effective date is the day two weeks after the day on which Kāinga Ora informs the Tenant in writing that it intends to proceed with the development.
The variation was signed on 21 February 2023. I was not provided with a copy of any letter from Kāinga Ora to the tenants stating that it intends to proceed with the development.
On 1 March 2023, contractors arrived on site and began preparation work, including installing safety fencing.
The contractors moved the Linds’ belongings in the garage into the back half of the garage. The intention was that the contractors would build two sheds for the Linds to move their belongings into.
Part of the garage was demolished and removed on or around 6–8 March. This included concrete cutting work. All of Mr & Mrs Lind’s belongings and their two vehicles were still in the garage at that time. The remaining part of the garage (the equivalent of one bay) was enclosed. Mr & Mrs Lind’s belongings remained there. The removal of part of the garage was sufficient to allow access for the re-locatable home.
In mid-late March, Kāinga Ora provided the first storage shed, the smaller of the two that Kāinga Ora intended to provide. The shed was put on a part of the property that was vulnerable to flooding. With the assistance of a neighbour, Mr Lind shifted the shed to higher ground.
The Linds transferred some of their belongings from the remaining part of the garage into this first shed, but it was too small to take everything.
The house was delivered to the new site on 3 or 5 April (the parties disagree about the date).
On 30 May, the second, larger, storage shed was completed. Kāinga Ora’s contractors moved some of the Linds’ remaining belongings into the shed. This was done without the Linds’ knowledge or consent. The contractors cut the remainder of the concrete in the last part of the garage.
Demolition work finished on a Friday afternoon with one wall left standing in the garage. Mr & Mrs Lind provided a photograph of this. Some of their belongings are still there, in the now essentially non-existent “garage”. Over that weekend there was rain and strong wind, and the remaining wall fell down onto their belongings.
Mr & Mrs Lind said that they attempted to go into the garage area to retrieve or protect their belongings, but they were told that it was a construction site and they were not allowed to enter without protective equipment.
Mr & Mrs Lind said that during the garage removal processes in March and May: a. Some of their belongings were damaged by being left out in the rain. b. Some of their belongings were damaged by concrete dust, including both their vehicles. c. Some of their belongings were damaged by careless handling by the contractors. d. Some of their belongings went missing. e. The contractors handled, moved, and used their belongings without their consent. They used their ladder and tools. They took items out of plastic boxes and put them back in others. They took Mrs Lind’s mobility scooter for a ‘joy ride’.
Landlords or their contractors have no legal right to handle tenant’s belongings.
The variation to the tenancy agreement “relinquished” Mr & Mrs Lind’s right to part of the premises including the garage, but it gave Kāinga Ora no additional rights in respect of Mr & Mrs Lind’s belongings in the garage.
Mr & Mrs Lind provided a “Schedule of damaged / lost / destroyed items”. There are 26 types of items on the list, not including the vehicles. There are multiples of some of the types of items (chairs, pots, mats, garden ornaments, etc.).
The total value listed on the Schedule is $9,732.82.
For the cars, Mr & Mrs Lind paid the insurance excess for each vehicle ($400.00). The rest of the repair cost was paid by their insurer.
The Tenancy Tribunal sometimes deals with tenant claims for damage to personal belongings, often in the context of a flood in the property. Claims of this type are difficult to evidence. It is hard for tenants to prove that they owned a particular item, and that it was damaged in the way that they allege. It is hard for tenants to prove the value of the item.
That is the case here. Most of the claim for damaged / lost / destroyed items is not well evidenced. There is evidence in support of some parts of the claim, in particular the items damaged by concrete dust.
Mr & Mrs Lind provided copies of the estimates for the repairs to the vehicles and some photographs of the vehicles. The photographs and the description of the work in the estimates are consistent with Mr & Mrs Lind’s argument that the vehicles were damaged by concrete dust. They provided a copy of a repair assessment on Mrs Lind’s sewing machine (concluding that it is not economic to repair and it has a replacement value of $1,299.00) but the assessment does not describe the nature of the damage to the machine.
On the evidence available to me I am satisfied that: a. Kāinga Ora failed to inform Mr & Mrs Lind about their plans before 21 February 2023. b. Kāinga Ora failed to provide adequate alternative storage for the belongings before the demolition began. c. This lack of planning and foresight by Kāinga Ora meant that Mr & Mrs Lind’s belongings remained in the garage and were an obstruction and inconvenience for their contractors. This does not excuse in any way the way that the contractors dealt with Mr & Mrs Lind’s property, but it is a situation that could have been avoided with better communication and planning on Kāinga Ora’s part. d. Kāinga Ora’s contractors handled Mr & Mrs Lind’s belongings without consent on multiple occasions. Each instance of this was a trespass to goods. e. Beyond just handling the belongings, Kāinga Ora’s contractors treated them with disregard. They helped themselves to various items. They left them out in the rain. They carried out concrete cutting knowing that the belongings would be exposed to cement dust.
Mr & Mrs Lind are entitled to compensation for the unlawful interference with, and damage to, their personal property.
Damages are addressed below. Maintenance / healthy homes
Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 4
Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards. 5
The healthy homes standard for moisture ingress and drainage requires that the property must have efficient drainage for the removal of storm water.
A breach of these duties is an unlawful act. 6
Kāinga Ora did not dispute that: a. The driveway was not in a reasonable state of repair at the start of the tenancy. This was not remedied until after the subdivision was completed. b. The original garage was prone to flooding and it did flood during Mr & Mrs Linds’ tenancy.
Kāinga Ora failed to meet its maintenance obligation in respect of the driveway.
Kāinga Ora failed to meet the healthy homes standard for drainage.
Damages are addressed below. Damages Interference with quiet enjoyment
A breach of this duty is not an unlawful act. 7 I cannot consider exemplary damages.
I will make an award of compensation for loss of amenity.
Kāinga Ora took away part of the premises from the tenants and provided them with no reduction in rent or any other sort of compensation. Kāinga Ora rely on 4 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 5 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA 6 Section 45(1A) RTA 7 Section 38(1) RTA the fact that the tenants consented. I consider that the consent was tainted and insufficient given that it was obtained through flawed process and (even if inadvertently) through Kāinga Ora’s position of power over the Linds.
The Linds now have less than they were promised in the tenancy agreement, especially in respect of the garage. As noted above, they now have a storage shed instead of a three-bay garage. The shed cannot accommodate their cars and it does not have power to it.
The loss of the large back section is less of a detriment to the Linds. Although it was pleasant enough, it was too big for the Linds to maintain themselves and they paid a contractor to mow it.
It is also important to note that the Linds had (and have) no objections to using that land for housing. They recognise the need for housing and have no concerns about having a new neighbour.
Assessment of an appropriate amount of compensation is complex. I have had regard to the following considerations: a. It would be impractical and unjust to assess an on-going and indefinite rent reduction based on the loss of use of the garage. b. Mr & Mrs Lind do not pay market rent for the premises. At the start of the tenancy the market rent was $390 per week and Mr & Mrs Lind paid $168 per week. c. Calculation of a lump sum compensation must begin with consideration of the loss of amenity associated with the removal of the garage, but it must be capped at an appropriate amount, and it must also take into account the wider context of the way that Kāinga Ora’s went about taking away part of the premises from the Linds.
Weighing these considerations, I will award compensation of $3,000.00. Belongings
With the assistance of Mr Henderson, Mr & Mrs Lind provided clear, detailed, and persuasive submissions to the Tribunal. On more than one occasion, their recollection of certain events, which was initially disputed by Kāinga Ora, proved to be correct.
I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of their schedule of damaged / lost / destroyed items.
However, I have noted the very limited evidence in support of the claim. That is not a criticism of Mr & Mrs Lind, it is a common difficulty with claims of this type.
There is sufficient evidence to prove (to the standard of “more likely than not”) the Linds’ claim for concrete dust damage to their vehicles. The cost to them for the repair of that damage was $800.00.
In terms of the other specific claims for damaged / missing chattels I accept that Kāinga Ora’s contractors caused damage to the Linds’ property by handling them carelessly, exposing them to concrete dust, allowing them to be exposed to the elements, and taking or losing them without consent. However, the exact scope and value of that damage is not proven by independent evidence.
The Tenancy Tribunal is required to determine disputes according to the substantial merits and justice of the case. 8 It would be unjust to limit the Linds’ claim to the specific proven loss of $800.
I will make an award of general damages that takes into account: a. The virtual certainty that Kāinga Ora’s contractors damaged a substantial amount of the Linds’ belongings. b. The fact that the Linds’ schedule is an honest and good faith document. c. The stress and inconvenience caused to the Linds not only by the loss of their belongings, but in the way that Kāinga Ora’s contractor treated their property with disregard.
Having regard to those considerations, I will award $5,000.00. Maintenance and healthy homes
Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and failure to comply with the healthy homes standards are unlawful acts.
Exemplary damages of up to $7,200 can apply.
The Tribunal may award exemplary damages if the Tribunal is satisfied that an unlawful act was committed intentionally. In considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to: 9 a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest. 8 Section 85(2) RTA 9 Section 109 RTA
Where there is more than one proven unlawful act under the same section of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the Tribunal may only make one award of exemplary damages. 10
In this instance: a. Kāinga Ora was aware of the problems with the driveway and with flooding in the garage. Kāinga Ora elected not to address them. Kāinga Ora’s reasoning was that the garage was going to be removed and the driveway replaced when the subdivision was done. b. The effect of Kāinga Ora’s failure to maintain the driveway was that Mrs Lind seriously injured herself twice in falls / accidents on the driveway, and her scooter was damaged beyond repair. c. The effect of Kāinga Ora’s failure to meet the healthy homes standard for drainage was that the garage flooded, causing damage to Mr & Mrs Lind’s property. Some of this loss was covered by Mr & Mrs Linds’ insurers. After that, the Linds were forced to use pallets to keep their belongings off the floor, and they worried about their belongings every time there was heavy rain. d. There is a strong and legitimate public interest in ensuring that landlords meet their legal duty to maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair and ensure that the stormwater drainage is adequate. It is also appropriate to hold Kāinga Ora to a high standard, given that they frequently have vulnerable tenants (Mr & Mrs Lind are in their eighties). Kāinga Ora themselves promise a high standard of care for their tenants, beyond the standard that the law provides. To quote from a letter that Kāinga Ora wrote to Mr & Mrs Lind in June 2022: Our goal is for you to feel safe, secure and supported in your home, connected to your community and feel in control over your life and well being. If these are not empty words, they are a standard by which Kāinga Ora is inviting itself to be judged.
Having regard to these factors, and to the fact that there are two proven (and substantial) breaches, I will award exemplary damages of $5,400.00 (three- quarters of the maximum). Summary
The total amount of damages is $13,400.00. 10 Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Ltd [2024] NZDC 27583 Costs Claim
The claim seeks payment of the Lind’s legal costs. Mr & Mrs Lind engaged Mr Henderson (Henderson Reeves). Mr Henderson assisted Mr & Mrs Lind thoughout the process, from filing the Tenancy Tribunal application to attending the three hearings.
The total legal costs were $20,114.65. Law
Where a party is represented by counsel, the Tenancy Tribunal may award reasonable costs in association with the proceedings. 11
Full indemnity costs cannot be claimed as of right in the Tenancy Tribunal.
In Wing On So v Body Corporate 349200 12 the District Court clarified the approach that the Tribunal should take to costs under section 103(2)(b) RTA. Judge Clark said that: the Tribunal should avoid an approach which starts with the position of what the actual costs are when indemnity costs cannot be claimed as of right. Rather, the approach should be an objective assessment of what steps had to be undertaken for the successful party to achieve the result they have, and in doing so applying the factors listed in Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand, using the scale costs regime as a guideline. This approach does allow flexibility and does not exclude a claim for close to indemnity costs if, in the context of what is “reasonable”, such costs can be justified. 13
The “factors listed in Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand” that His Honour refers to are: An award of costs for counsel are usually a reasonable contribution to legal costs, not full costs. The usual range is 40 to 70 per cent of actual costs and factors to consider include the party's success, length of hearing, amount involved, importance of the issues, complexity, urgency, time for effective preparation, any unnecessary steps, arguments without substance, abuse of process, poor presentation, where the hearing time was lengthened by parties conduct and for guidance purposes, the District Court scale of costs. 14 Discussion 11 Section 103(2)(b) RTA 12 [2024] NZDC 9439 13 At para 109 14 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand, Thomson Reuters [2018] at 9.23
Mr Henderson provided submissions about costs. Mr Henderson said that: a. The Linds are elderly, extremely stressed, and needy in terms of explanation of the legal framing of the claim. b. He was initially hopeful of a reasonable settlement from Kāinga Ora but Kāinga Ora did not act reasonably and were “dismissive” of the Linds. c. One of the reasons for the adjournment of the first hearing was that Kāinga Ora’s representative was adamant that there had been multiple meetings between Kāinga Ora and the Linds about the subdivision before February 2023. At the second hearing, Kāinga Ora acknowledged that there is no record of any such meetings. d. Kāinga Ora engaged in “inescapably egregious conduct”.
Mr Henderson noted that: a. He did not charge all the hours that he worked on the file. b. Some of the work in the initial stages was done by a junior lawyer at Henderson Reeves. When that person left the firm Mr Henderson continued the work himself because “it would have been unfair to [the Linds] and probably not cost efficient to have to meet and develop trust in a third member of this firm”. The charge out rate of the junior lawyer was $180 plus GST / hour. Mr Henderson’s charge out rate is $440 plus GST / hour.
Kāinga Ora did not provide any submissions about costs.
In considering an appropriate award of costs I have had regard to: a. Mr & Mrs Lind’s success in the claim. b. Scale costs on a Schedule 2b basis. There were three defended hearings at the Tribunal. A significant amount of preparation was required given the range of tenancy issues and the need for extensive guidance for Mr & Mrs Lind. c. Access to justice. I accept Mr Henderson’s comment that Mr & Mrs Lind could not have brought this matter to the Tribunal without considerable assistance. d. Kāinga Ora’s approach to the proceedings, for example: i. At times, Kāinga Ora’s representatives did not have complete or accurate information. ii. There was a considerable delay between the first and second hearing (not due to the parties). At the second hearing on 4 April 2025, Kāinga Ora’s representative immediately requested an adjournment to have the opportunity to negotiate a settlement with the Linds. Mr Henderson reluctantly agreed to the adjournment, but he noted that Kāinga Ora had ample opportunity to negotiate before the first hearing in October 2024 or during the five and a half months after that hearing. In his submission for the third hearing, Mr Henderson states that he provided an updated statement of costs to Kāinga Ora at their request for the negotiation, and “the only response was to the effect: see you in court”. Mr Henderson’s costs relating to preparing for and attending the third hearing were $3,036.00. iii. Despite the clear and obvious failures in respect of: providing information to the Linds about the subdivision and obtaining their informed consent; facilitating / ensuring the safe removal of the Linds property from the garage; overseeing the actions of their contractors; maintaining the driveway in a safe and useable condition; ensuring that the premises met the healthy homes standards; Kāinga Ora continued to defend the claim by critiquing relatively minor aspects of the tenants’ claim for damages. For instance, Kāinga Ora seemed very fixated with the claim for damage to the Linds’ vehicles and for concrete dust damage to their sewing machine. e. It appears that Mr Henderson has been Mr & Mrs Lind’s lawyer for a long time, and they have a good relationship with him. It is understandable why they wanted Mr Henderson to assist them. However, Mr Henderson is a very experienced civil litigator, and a director at Henderson Reeves. His charge out rate reflects that standing and experience. The Tenancy Tribunal has informal processes that allow for (usually) unrepresented parties. Adjudicators are trained to hear from parties who have no understanding of legal processes or tenancy law. Also, Tenancy Services is available to landlords and tenants to give free advice about tenancy matters and about the Tenancy Tribunal. Mr & Mrs Lind have relied entirely on Mr Henderson throughout the process. In his costs submission Mr Henderson notes that “the actual cost of doing this work would be way beyond the capacity of the Linds, but I was challenged by the injustice”, and he also makes this comment “my firm was prepared to work on the basis that might end up having to be pro bono”.
My finding is that it is appropriate to make an award above the “usual” 40-70% range having regard to the factors detailed above. I will award costs of $15,085.99, which is 75% of the proven legal costs. Summary, filing fee
The tenants have been successful in this application, and I will also award the tenants the filing fee of $27.00. 15
The claims for breach of quiet enjoyment, interference with (and damage to) belongings, failure to maintain, and failure to comply with the healthy homes standard for drainage are proven.
The tenants are entitled to costs.
The damages that I have awarded do not, and are not intended to, reflect the extent of the distress and inconvenience that the Linds experienced due to the events discussed above. In simple terms, it has been a nightmare for them. The Linds said that the main reason for their application was to vindicate their experience – to show that Kāinga Ora’s failings caused them significant and unnecessary suffering. Without reservation, I give them that vindication. Unfortunately, in this instance Kāinga Ora fell well short of its aim to make Mr & Mrs Lind feel “safe, secure and supported” in their home. The Linds hope that no-one else has to go through what they have gone through. I also endorse that sentiment.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4946313 — Healthy homes at 2B Union Street, Hikurangi 0114

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4946313 — Healthy homes at 2B Union Street, Hikurangi 0114

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions