What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5275339?

The tribunal order states: Vision Realty Management Limited - as agent for Stephen Ni must pay Ava Paris

How much money was awarded in case 5275339?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5275339?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5275339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12162793-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5275339?

The tribunal order states: Vision Realty Management Limited - as agent for Stephen Ni must pay Ava Paris

How much money was awarded in case 5275339?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5275339?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5275339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12162793-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Eden Place, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5275339 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5275339 — net $1,827.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – loss of enjoyment of tenancy due to delayed repairs	$1,800.00	Compensation – loss of enjoyment of tenancy due to delayed repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,827.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,827.00

Order

Vision Realty Management Limited - as agent for Stephen Ni must pay Ava Paris Tyson, Monique Bell and Paighten Pipson $1,827.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The application for work orders is dismissed.
The application for exemplary damages for a failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today. Ms Wong represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for work orders, compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain and repair the premises, and for exemplary damages for non-compliance with the HHS.
For convenience, I have referred to the parties in the singular. Background
The tenancy started on or about 10 August 2020. The tenancy is due to end on 4 August 2025. So, it has been a long tenancy by New Zealand standards.
Throughout 2024, but especially towards the end of that year, the roof leaked and ceilings in 2 bedrooms were affected; they bulged and became spongy.
As well, the tenant became concerned at the state of some of the window frames. The putty had fallen out in some areas and the windows became draughty.
The tenant raised these issues and eventually issued a 14-day notice for repairs.
The landlord had a roofer inspect the roof and carry out repairs. It then arranged for its handyman to patch the areas of the ceiling where water had seeped through from the roof cavity.
One of the bedrooms was particularly affected and the tenant whose room it was took to sleeping in the lounge after mid-October 2024.
The tenant also worried about mould due to the on-going leaking. They accept now that no mould was found, but it caused them concern.
One of the tenants attributes her on-going winter cold symptoms to the fact that the premises were cold and the ceiling damp.
The landlord’s first roofing contractor promised to assess and repair the roof, but he failed to do so. The landlord had to engage a second roofer, but that caused quite a delay.
The parties tried to agree on compensation for the tenant’s loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the delayed repairs, but they could not agree.
The tenant has therefore applied to the Tribunal for orders. Issues
The Tribunal must determine these issues: •Should work orders be made? •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? If so, how much should the

Tribunal award?

•Can the Tribunal award exemplary damages for non-compliance with the

HHS?

Relevant law

Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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 78(1)(e) RTA enables the Tribunal to make a work order. 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.
In Tenants v Singh 2 the Tribunal set out a helpful guide to awards of compensation. It said: “Accordingly, I consider that the bands that might usefully inform my decision in this case are; A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $1,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 2 [2022] NZTT 4315225 C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 and upwards.”
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 with intent 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. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. Discussion

Should work orders be made?

The tenants sought work orders for the repair of parts of ceilings in 2 bedrooms, for the repair of window frames, for the assessment of the roof (to which repairs have already been done); and for the servicing of the heat pump and the HRV system.
As the tenancy will end on 4 August 2025, the Tribunal declines to make any work orders. The tenancy will likely be over before the orders could be complied with.
The application for work orders is dismissed. Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? If so, how much should the

Tribunal award?

The landlord accepts that the tenant suffered some loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to leaking from the roof through the ceiling which affected one bedroom in particular. Ms Wong explained that the first roofing contractor she instructed promised repeatedly to do the roof repair but failed to do so. That resulted in a delay for which she apologised.
The tenants sought a 20% rent reduction for the period between 19 October 2024 and 24 July 2025 ($3,978.00) and compensation of $1,000.00 for health and safety breaches and for stress and inconvenience.
The Tribunal would regard this claim as a claim for loss of enjoyment of the tenancy generally due to delayed repairs.
Rent can only abate when premises are destroyed or so seriously damaged so as to become uninhabitable in whole or in part. The tenant has not proved that these premises were uninhabitable.
The medical evidence the tenant produced establishes a temporal connection, but not necessarily a causal one, between the effects of the delayed repairs and one of the tenant’s cold symptoms. A doctor can only speculate about the cause of a winter illness.
The parties tried to reach an agreement about compensation but were unable to. Having assessed the evidence, both oral and documentary, I find that an award of compensation of $1,800.00 is appropriate in this case, towards the upper end of the ‘B’ category referred to by the Tribunal in Tenants v Singh.
Compensation is not punitive, it recognises loss, in this case, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy. The evidence Ms Wong gave establishes that she acted to the best of her ability and the delays were due to factors largely beyond her control. But the effects of those delays on the tenant must be recognised and remedied, which is what compensation is for. Can the Tribunal award exemplary damages for non-compliance with the

HHS?

Ms Wong confirmed that there has been a professional assessment of the premises for compliance with the HHS. She undertook to provide a copy of that assessment to the tenant.
The tenant produced no evidence to establish that the premises were non- compliant with the HHS. They simply raised a query as to compliance which will now be addressed by the disclosure of the report.
I dismiss the application for exemplary damages. The tenant has not proved that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to comply with its responsibilities under section 45 RTA, in particular the responsibility to ensure compliance with the HHS. Result
The application for work orders is dismissed. The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The Tribunal awards the tenant $1,800.00 as compensation for a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to delayed repairs.
The landlord must pay the tenant $1,827.00 which includes reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenant did not seek name suppression. The landlord sought name suppression. I make no name suppression order as the landlord has not successfully defended all the claims – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5275339 — net $1,827.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – loss of enjoyment of tenancy due to delayed repairs	$1,800.00	Compensation – loss of enjoyment of tenancy due to delayed repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,827.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,827.00

Order

Vision Realty Management Limited - as agent for Stephen Ni must pay Ava Paris Tyson, Monique Bell and Paighten Pipson $1,827.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The application for work orders is dismissed.
The application for exemplary damages for a failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today. Ms Wong represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for work orders, compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain and repair the premises, and for exemplary damages for non-compliance with the HHS.
For convenience, I have referred to the parties in the singular. Background
The tenancy started on or about 10 August 2020. The tenancy is due to end on 4 August 2025. So, it has been a long tenancy by New Zealand standards.
Throughout 2024, but especially towards the end of that year, the roof leaked and ceilings in 2 bedrooms were affected; they bulged and became spongy.
As well, the tenant became concerned at the state of some of the window frames. The putty had fallen out in some areas and the windows became draughty.
The tenant raised these issues and eventually issued a 14-day notice for repairs.
The landlord had a roofer inspect the roof and carry out repairs. It then arranged for its handyman to patch the areas of the ceiling where water had seeped through from the roof cavity.
One of the bedrooms was particularly affected and the tenant whose room it was took to sleeping in the lounge after mid-October 2024.
The tenant also worried about mould due to the on-going leaking. They accept now that no mould was found, but it caused them concern.
One of the tenants attributes her on-going winter cold symptoms to the fact that the premises were cold and the ceiling damp.
The landlord’s first roofing contractor promised to assess and repair the roof, but he failed to do so. The landlord had to engage a second roofer, but that caused quite a delay.
The parties tried to agree on compensation for the tenant’s loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the delayed repairs, but they could not agree.
The tenant has therefore applied to the Tribunal for orders. Issues
The Tribunal must determine these issues: •Should work orders be made? •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? If so, how much should the

Tribunal award?

•Can the Tribunal award exemplary damages for non-compliance with the

HHS?

Relevant law

Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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 78(1)(e) RTA enables the Tribunal to make a work order. 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.
In Tenants v Singh 2 the Tribunal set out a helpful guide to awards of compensation. It said: “Accordingly, I consider that the bands that might usefully inform my decision in this case are; A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $1,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 2 [2022] NZTT 4315225 C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 and upwards.”
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 with intent 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. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. Discussion

Should work orders be made?

The tenants sought work orders for the repair of parts of ceilings in 2 bedrooms, for the repair of window frames, for the assessment of the roof (to which repairs have already been done); and for the servicing of the heat pump and the HRV system.
As the tenancy will end on 4 August 2025, the Tribunal declines to make any work orders. The tenancy will likely be over before the orders could be complied with.
The application for work orders is dismissed. Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? If so, how much should the

Tribunal award?

The landlord accepts that the tenant suffered some loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to leaking from the roof through the ceiling which affected one bedroom in particular. Ms Wong explained that the first roofing contractor she instructed promised repeatedly to do the roof repair but failed to do so. That resulted in a delay for which she apologised.
The tenants sought a 20% rent reduction for the period between 19 October 2024 and 24 July 2025 ($3,978.00) and compensation of $1,000.00 for health and safety breaches and for stress and inconvenience.
The Tribunal would regard this claim as a claim for loss of enjoyment of the tenancy generally due to delayed repairs.
Rent can only abate when premises are destroyed or so seriously damaged so as to become uninhabitable in whole or in part. The tenant has not proved that these premises were uninhabitable.
The medical evidence the tenant produced establishes a temporal connection, but not necessarily a causal one, between the effects of the delayed repairs and one of the tenant’s cold symptoms. A doctor can only speculate about the cause of a winter illness.
The parties tried to reach an agreement about compensation but were unable to. Having assessed the evidence, both oral and documentary, I find that an award of compensation of $1,800.00 is appropriate in this case, towards the upper end of the ‘B’ category referred to by the Tribunal in Tenants v Singh.
Compensation is not punitive, it recognises loss, in this case, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy. The evidence Ms Wong gave establishes that she acted to the best of her ability and the delays were due to factors largely beyond her control. But the effects of those delays on the tenant must be recognised and remedied, which is what compensation is for. Can the Tribunal award exemplary damages for non-compliance with the

HHS?

Ms Wong confirmed that there has been a professional assessment of the premises for compliance with the HHS. She undertook to provide a copy of that assessment to the tenant.
The tenant produced no evidence to establish that the premises were non- compliant with the HHS. They simply raised a query as to compliance which will now be addressed by the disclosure of the report.
I dismiss the application for exemplary damages. The tenant has not proved that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to comply with its responsibilities under section 45 RTA, in particular the responsibility to ensure compliance with the HHS. Result
The application for work orders is dismissed. The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The Tribunal awards the tenant $1,800.00 as compensation for a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to delayed repairs.
The landlord must pay the tenant $1,827.00 which includes reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenant did not seek name suppression. The landlord sought name suppression. I make no name suppression order as the landlord has not successfully defended all the claims – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5275339 — Property damage at 6 Eden Place, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5275339 — Property damage at 6 Eden Place, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Tribunal award?

HHS?

Should work orders be made?

Tribunal award?

HHS?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Tribunal award?

HHS?

Should work orders be made?

Tribunal award?

HHS?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions