What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5246399?

The tribunal order states: Carole Deering Irvine and Geoffrey Malcolm Irvine to pay Holmwood Property

How much money was awarded in case 5246399?

Compensation: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,742.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5246399?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5246399?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11816047-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5246399?

The tribunal order states: Carole Deering Irvine and Geoffrey Malcolm Irvine to pay Holmwood Property

How much money was awarded in case 5246399?

Compensation: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,742.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5246399?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5246399?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11816047-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16 Totara Street, Fendalton, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5246399 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5246399 — net $242.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 May 2025	$2,742.86		Rent arrears to 4 May 2025
Compensation for loss of enjoyment of tenancy		$2,500.00	Compensation for loss of enjoyment of tenancy
Total award	$2,742.86	$2,500.00
Net award	$242.86
Bond	$4,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$242.86

Order

Carole Deering Irvine and Geoffrey Malcolm Irvine to pay Holmwood Property Management Sherborne Limited trading as Harcourts Holmwood as agent for Gary Stevens and Therese Camm $242.86 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,800.00 (3035360-008) immediately apportioned as follows: Holmwood Property Management Sherborne Limited trading as Harcourts Holmwood as agent for Gary Stevens and Therese Camm : $242.86 Carole Deering Irvine and Geoffrey Malcolm Irvine: $4,557.14
The tenants’ application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 8 May 2025. Ms Johnson and Mr Williams represented the landlord. Background
The tenancy started on 18 May 2024. It was a fixed term tenancy until 25 May 2025.
The owners purchased the premises but were residing in Australia during the term of the tenancy. They have since returned and are now living in the premises.
From soon after the start of the tenancy the tenants raised repair and maintenance issues. Things worsened around Christmas 2024 when 2 elements on the induction cooktop stopped working. As well there was leaking from the upstairs shower through the ceiling of a downstairs bedroom. The tenants felt unable to use the bedroom due to the smell and dampness.
At that time the tenants had a family member visiting so they were inconvenienced by that.
There were discussions between the parties about the tenancy ending earlier than it was meant to. The owners raised the possibility of moving into the premises and the tenants began looking for another tenancy.
The tenants say that an agreement was reached so that they could vacate on 18 April 2025; the landlord says while there were discussions, no agreement was reached.
The tenants vacated they tenancy having taken up a new tenancy. They seek a finding that the tenancy ended by agreement on 18 April 2025 with their liability for rent ending then as well. They also seek compensation and exemplary damages arising from the repair and maintenance issues.
The landlord seeks rent to 4 May 2025; the owners took back possession on 5 May. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Did the parties agree to end the tenancy on 18 April 2025? If not, what is the tenants’ rent liability? •Did the landlord fail to maintain and repair the premises? If so, was there a breach of the landlord’s statutory responsibilities that amounts to an unlawful act? •Have the tenants proved a claim for compensation? Relevant legal considerations
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
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). Compensation and exemplary damages
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 1 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. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667
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. Discussion Did the parties agree to end the tenancy on 18 April 2025? If not, what is the tenants’ rent liability?
The evidence shows that there were discussions between the parties and the owner at times about ending the tenancy before the expiry of the term.
However, what is missing evidentially is an agreement in clear terms about when the tenancy would end.
The tenants believed they had certainty and went ahead and arranged their new tenancy. But for the Tribunal to find that there was a variation of contract (variation of the tenancy agreement) it would have to be satisfied that there was a definite date agreed to by both parties.
The parties’ recollections of the verbal discussions they had vary: the tenants said that Ms Johnson committed to a firm date ending the tenancy; Ms Johnson said she had no firm date just a tentative agreement from the owners that the tenancy might have been able to end sooner, if it met both parties’ needs.
There is no reason for the Tribunal to prefer one party’s recollection of what was discussed over the other’s. This is not a credibility issue. It is simply a difference in recall about what was said.
Without a clear agreement to change the end date of the tenancy, the Tribunal finds that the tenancy remained a fixed term tenancy until the owners took possession. That action brought the tenancy to an end.
It follows that the tenants remain liable for rent until 4 May 2025. The owners took possession the following day. Did the landlord fail to maintain and repair the premises? If so, was there a breach of the landlord’s statutory responsibilities that amounts to an unlawful act?
The tenants referred to maintenance issues that caused them concern and a loss of use and enjoyment of the premises. •The shower leaked into the ceiling space below causing obvious damage to the ceiling and making the bedroom below smelly and damp, though there was no obvious mould. •The gates at the front of the property which they described as big old heavy timber gates malfunctioned from soon after the tenancy started and continued to intermittently open which posed issues because the tenants had dogs that could have got out. •The front garage door had to be opened manually for about one month. •The cooktop (hob) broke on Christmas day 2024 – two of the four induction elements would not work. The tenants said it took 49 days for the repair to be done. •Lights in the kitchen and a lamp from the ceiling in the lounge flickered. •The gas fire when installed had the switch in an opposite position – on was off, and vice versa.
Ms Johnson said the owners did not want to completely repair the shower until they took back possession. The crack in the shower was temporarily repaired with silicone.
Ms Johnson said that the gates did malfunction. They too were temporarily repaired because the owners wanted to do further work once they got possession. The garage door was addressed promptly.
Ms Johnson said that the repair of the oven hob was ‘a drama’ and the repair process was drawn out. The owners offered a cash payment by way of compensation but never heard from the tenants about it.
The electrician could not find any fault with the flickering lights. The gas fire was assessed promptly once the tenant reported the problem.
Although there were some delayed repairs, such as the hob, that does not mean that the landlord failed to maintain and repair the premises. The Tribunal can only award exemplary damages when the landlord has intentionally failed in their responsibility to maintain and repair the premises.
Importantly, section 45 RTA takes the age and character of the premises into account when setting out the landlord’s statutory responsibility to maintain and repair.
The evidence does not establish any intentional failure by the landlord of its responsibility to maintain and repair. The Tribunal cannot award the tenants exemplary damages. That claim is dismissed.

Have the tenants proved a claim for compensation?

Unlike exemplary damages which are punitive, compensation is not. It is awarded to recognise loss.
Ms Deering-Irvine set out in detail how she considered the tenants lost the enjoyment of the tenancy due to delayed repairs and the confusion around their request to end the tenancy earlier and be given a clear date when they could vacate.
The tenants said there were no inspections after the initial one, and then one other by the owners.
This appears to have been a case where the owners wanted to maintain a measure of control rather than leave the whole management of the tenancy to the property management company they had instructed as their agent. They decided to do some minimal repairs until they took back possession. The tenants feel they bore the brunt of that.
The weekly rent for this tenancy was $1,200.00. So, the tenants were entitled to expect premises that were well maintained and properly and promptly repaired.
The failure of the induction hob resulted in a considerable loss of enjoyment for the tenants. While the delayed repairs might have been largely beyond the landlord’s control, the tenants are still entitled to be compensated for that loss.
So too, the loss of use of the downstairs bedroom due to the leak from the shower through the ceiling. While apparently the silicone repair worked, the tenants still found the room the be damp and smelly. The owners took responsibility for inspections, yet they lived in Australia.
The gas fire switch, and the malfunctioning gates were inconveniences that were probably less serious, although the issue with the front gates was worrying because the tenants had dogs that had be put in the garage from time to time to prevent them getting out.
I find that the tenants suffered a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy that justifies a reasonable award of compensation. I award them $2,500.00. Result
The Tribunal does not find that there was a confirmed agreement to end the tenancy on 18 April 2025; there was no variation of contract. The tenants remain liable for rent to 4 May 2025 (after which the owner of the premises took possession), an amount of $2,742.86.
The Tribunal award the tenants compensation of $2,500.00 for their loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to on-going maintenance issues and delayed repairs.
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
No award of the filing fees is made; each party has succeeded. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other.
The bond will be split between the parties - $242.86 to the landlord and $4,557.14 to the tenants. Name suppression
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought an order for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5246399 — net $242.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 May 2025	$2,742.86		Rent arrears to 4 May 2025
Compensation for loss of enjoyment of tenancy		$2,500.00	Compensation for loss of enjoyment of tenancy
Total award	$2,742.86	$2,500.00
Net award	$242.86
Bond	$4,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$242.86

Order

Carole Deering Irvine and Geoffrey Malcolm Irvine to pay Holmwood Property Management Sherborne Limited trading as Harcourts Holmwood as agent for Gary Stevens and Therese Camm $242.86 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,800.00 (3035360-008) immediately apportioned as follows: Holmwood Property Management Sherborne Limited trading as Harcourts Holmwood as agent for Gary Stevens and Therese Camm : $242.86 Carole Deering Irvine and Geoffrey Malcolm Irvine: $4,557.14
The tenants’ application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 8 May 2025. Ms Johnson and Mr Williams represented the landlord. Background
The tenancy started on 18 May 2024. It was a fixed term tenancy until 25 May 2025.
The owners purchased the premises but were residing in Australia during the term of the tenancy. They have since returned and are now living in the premises.
From soon after the start of the tenancy the tenants raised repair and maintenance issues. Things worsened around Christmas 2024 when 2 elements on the induction cooktop stopped working. As well there was leaking from the upstairs shower through the ceiling of a downstairs bedroom. The tenants felt unable to use the bedroom due to the smell and dampness.
At that time the tenants had a family member visiting so they were inconvenienced by that.
There were discussions between the parties about the tenancy ending earlier than it was meant to. The owners raised the possibility of moving into the premises and the tenants began looking for another tenancy.
The tenants say that an agreement was reached so that they could vacate on 18 April 2025; the landlord says while there were discussions, no agreement was reached.
The tenants vacated they tenancy having taken up a new tenancy. They seek a finding that the tenancy ended by agreement on 18 April 2025 with their liability for rent ending then as well. They also seek compensation and exemplary damages arising from the repair and maintenance issues.
The landlord seeks rent to 4 May 2025; the owners took back possession on 5 May. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Did the parties agree to end the tenancy on 18 April 2025? If not, what is the tenants’ rent liability? •Did the landlord fail to maintain and repair the premises? If so, was there a breach of the landlord’s statutory responsibilities that amounts to an unlawful act? •Have the tenants proved a claim for compensation? Relevant legal considerations
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
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). Compensation and exemplary damages
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 1 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. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667
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. Discussion Did the parties agree to end the tenancy on 18 April 2025? If not, what is the tenants’ rent liability?
The evidence shows that there were discussions between the parties and the owner at times about ending the tenancy before the expiry of the term.
However, what is missing evidentially is an agreement in clear terms about when the tenancy would end.
The tenants believed they had certainty and went ahead and arranged their new tenancy. But for the Tribunal to find that there was a variation of contract (variation of the tenancy agreement) it would have to be satisfied that there was a definite date agreed to by both parties.
The parties’ recollections of the verbal discussions they had vary: the tenants said that Ms Johnson committed to a firm date ending the tenancy; Ms Johnson said she had no firm date just a tentative agreement from the owners that the tenancy might have been able to end sooner, if it met both parties’ needs.
There is no reason for the Tribunal to prefer one party’s recollection of what was discussed over the other’s. This is not a credibility issue. It is simply a difference in recall about what was said.
Without a clear agreement to change the end date of the tenancy, the Tribunal finds that the tenancy remained a fixed term tenancy until the owners took possession. That action brought the tenancy to an end.
It follows that the tenants remain liable for rent until 4 May 2025. The owners took possession the following day. Did the landlord fail to maintain and repair the premises? If so, was there a breach of the landlord’s statutory responsibilities that amounts to an unlawful act?
The tenants referred to maintenance issues that caused them concern and a loss of use and enjoyment of the premises. •The shower leaked into the ceiling space below causing obvious damage to the ceiling and making the bedroom below smelly and damp, though there was no obvious mould. •The gates at the front of the property which they described as big old heavy timber gates malfunctioned from soon after the tenancy started and continued to intermittently open which posed issues because the tenants had dogs that could have got out. •The front garage door had to be opened manually for about one month. •The cooktop (hob) broke on Christmas day 2024 – two of the four induction elements would not work. The tenants said it took 49 days for the repair to be done. •Lights in the kitchen and a lamp from the ceiling in the lounge flickered. •The gas fire when installed had the switch in an opposite position – on was off, and vice versa.
Ms Johnson said the owners did not want to completely repair the shower until they took back possession. The crack in the shower was temporarily repaired with silicone.
Ms Johnson said that the gates did malfunction. They too were temporarily repaired because the owners wanted to do further work once they got possession. The garage door was addressed promptly.
Ms Johnson said that the repair of the oven hob was ‘a drama’ and the repair process was drawn out. The owners offered a cash payment by way of compensation but never heard from the tenants about it.
The electrician could not find any fault with the flickering lights. The gas fire was assessed promptly once the tenant reported the problem.
Although there were some delayed repairs, such as the hob, that does not mean that the landlord failed to maintain and repair the premises. The Tribunal can only award exemplary damages when the landlord has intentionally failed in their responsibility to maintain and repair the premises.
Importantly, section 45 RTA takes the age and character of the premises into account when setting out the landlord’s statutory responsibility to maintain and repair.
The evidence does not establish any intentional failure by the landlord of its responsibility to maintain and repair. The Tribunal cannot award the tenants exemplary damages. That claim is dismissed.

Have the tenants proved a claim for compensation?

Unlike exemplary damages which are punitive, compensation is not. It is awarded to recognise loss.
Ms Deering-Irvine set out in detail how she considered the tenants lost the enjoyment of the tenancy due to delayed repairs and the confusion around their request to end the tenancy earlier and be given a clear date when they could vacate.
The tenants said there were no inspections after the initial one, and then one other by the owners.
This appears to have been a case where the owners wanted to maintain a measure of control rather than leave the whole management of the tenancy to the property management company they had instructed as their agent. They decided to do some minimal repairs until they took back possession. The tenants feel they bore the brunt of that.
The weekly rent for this tenancy was $1,200.00. So, the tenants were entitled to expect premises that were well maintained and properly and promptly repaired.
The failure of the induction hob resulted in a considerable loss of enjoyment for the tenants. While the delayed repairs might have been largely beyond the landlord’s control, the tenants are still entitled to be compensated for that loss.
So too, the loss of use of the downstairs bedroom due to the leak from the shower through the ceiling. While apparently the silicone repair worked, the tenants still found the room the be damp and smelly. The owners took responsibility for inspections, yet they lived in Australia.
The gas fire switch, and the malfunctioning gates were inconveniences that were probably less serious, although the issue with the front gates was worrying because the tenants had dogs that had be put in the garage from time to time to prevent them getting out.
I find that the tenants suffered a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy that justifies a reasonable award of compensation. I award them $2,500.00. Result
The Tribunal does not find that there was a confirmed agreement to end the tenancy on 18 April 2025; there was no variation of contract. The tenants remain liable for rent to 4 May 2025 (after which the owner of the premises took possession), an amount of $2,742.86.
The Tribunal award the tenants compensation of $2,500.00 for their loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to on-going maintenance issues and delayed repairs.
The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
No award of the filing fees is made; each party has succeeded. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other.
The bond will be split between the parties - $242.86 to the landlord and $4,557.14 to the tenants. Name suppression
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought an order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5246399 — Rent arrears at 16 Totara Street, Fendalton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5246399 — Rent arrears at 16 Totara Street, Fendalton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Have the tenants proved a claim for compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Have the tenants proved a claim for compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions