What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5324220?

The tribunal order states: BLK Enterprises Limited must pay Natasha Tewairua Maria Te Rore $38.00

How much money was awarded in case 5324220?

Compensation: Maintenance: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $690.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5324220?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5324220?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12954301-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5324220?

The tribunal order states: BLK Enterprises Limited must pay Natasha Tewairua Maria Te Rore $38.00

How much money was awarded in case 5324220?

Compensation: Maintenance: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $690.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5324220?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5324220?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12954301-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

328 Hokianga Harbour Drive, Omapere, Kaikohe 0473 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5324220 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5324220 — net $38.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$690.00		Water rates
Compensation: Maintenance		$200.00	Maintenance
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	63. Ms Te Rore was partially successful in her application, and I will award her the filing fee of $28.00.
Total award	$690.00	$728.00
Net award		$38.00
Bond		$690.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$38.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5324220 — net $38.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$690.00		Water rates
Compensation: Maintenance		$200.00	Maintenance
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	63. Ms Te Rore was partially successful in her application, and I will award her the filing fee of $28.00.
Total award	$690.00	$728.00
Net award		$38.00
Bond		$690.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$38.00

Order

BLK Enterprises Limited must pay Natasha Tewairua Maria Te Rore $38.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $690.00 (BN-00132011) to Natasha Tewairua Maria Te Rore immediately.

Reasons

Background

The tenanted premises is located above a service station in Omapere.
This was a fixed term tenancy that began on 23 August 2024. The tenancy ended on 30 August 2025.
The application raises issues relating to maintenance, the circumstances around the termination of the tenancy, failure to lodge the bond within 23 days, and unlawful entry.
The hearing took place in Kaikohe on 12 January 2026. Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Kingra and Ms Kaur represented BLK Enterprises. Maintenance
Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, “having regard to the age and character of the premises”. 1
Mr Kingra is based in Auckland. He said that routine maintenance / repair issues were taken care of by the gas station manager (Nick) and another commercial tenant of his (Ray).
Ms Te Rore raised the following issues under this heading: a. Window latches and stays. b. Toilet door. c. Door handles d. Mould and leaks. Window latches and stays
As noted above, the premises are on the second storey, above a petrol station. Ms Te Rore has a young child. Ms Te Rore said that there were several missing or broken window latches. She was concerned about safety for her child.
Ms Te Rore said that: a. She raised the issue with the landlord. b. Some of the latches were replaced in or around November 2024, by Ray. c. Ray said that he only had approval to replace some of the latches. d. She continued to raise the issue. e. Ray returned in or around February 2025 and replaced the other latches.
Mr Kingra said that: 1 Section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) a. He gave approval for Ray to do all of the work. b. The work was relatively minor and inexpensive. He did not limit the scope of what he authorized Ray to do. c. So far as he knew, Ray replaced the latches when he first attended in November. d. Ms Te Rore did not continue to raise the issue after November. e. He was not aware that Ray returned in February.
There is no evidence of Ms Te Rore continuing to raise this issue after November 2024, or of Ray returning to the property in February 2025.
The timeframe from the start of the tenancy on 23 August 2024 to the repair work in November 2024 is not unreasonable.
There is no proven breach of the landlord’s maintenance duty in respect of this issue. Toilet door
Ms Te Rore said that: a. The toilet door was damaged. It had no handle, and it was damaged on the hinges side, so that it could not be closed. b. She raised this issue with Mr Kingra, but nothing was done during her tenancy.
Mr Kingra said that he was aware that the toilet door did not have a handle. He assumed that Ray would repair this. He said that Ms Te Rore did not tell him that it had not been done.
Ms Te Rore provided a photograph showing the toilet door, but it does not show the hinge side of the door. The photograph shows that there is no handle on the door. Ms Te Rore also provided a video that she took when she viewed the property. The video includes the toilet, but the focus of the video is on cleaning issues, and the hinge side of the door cannot be seen on the video.
Mr Kingra said that after Ms Te Rore moved out, he had work done on the property including putting a handle on the toilet door, but no other work was necessary on the door.
There is no evidence of any written communication from Ms Te Rore to Mr Kingra about the toilet door during the tenancy.
My finding is that: a. It is proven that the toilet door had no handle, and this was not repaired during the tenancy. b. It is not proven that the toilet door was damaged on the hinge side.
I accept that Mr Kingra did not refuse to replace the handle, and he did not ignore the problem. He reasonably understood that Ray had done the work, and he was not told otherwise.
However, the responsibility for maintaining the premises ultimately fell to his company. The handle should have been sorted out at the beginning of the tenancy. It was not.
This amounts to a breach of the duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
It is appropriate to make an award of compensation to the tenant. It was frustrating and inconvenient for her. However, Ms Te Rore also shares some of the responsibility for failing to follow up with the landlord about this.
Balancing those considerations, I will award compensation of $200.00. Door handles
Ms Te Rore said that two of the handles on internal doors were broken. She said that she informed Mr Kingra about this, but he did not address it.
Mr Kingra said that he was not aware of any problems with the door handles and that Ms Te Rore did not tell him about this issue during her tenancy.
Ms Te Rore provided various screenshots of messages between herself and Mr Kingra about tenancy issues (mostly relating to leaks), but there is no mention about door handles in any of these messages.
My finding is that it is not proven that this issue was brought to Mr Kingra’s attention during the tenancy. Therefore, there is no breach of the landlord’s duty to maintain the premises. Leaks and mould
Ms Te Rore said that a visiting friend discovered damp carpet near the wall in one of the rooms. Ms Te Rore could not recall exactly when this was, but it may have been around February 2025. She said that her friend lifted the carpet and there was mould on the underlay. She said that she also saw mould on the wall in this room.
The landlord brought in a ‘handyman’ builder in July to investigate the problem, but it was still unrepaired when the landlord ended her tenancy in August.
Ms Te Rore sent Mr Kingra a 14-day breach notice that is dated 15 April 2025. At the hearing, Ms Te Rore acknowledged that although the notice is dated 15 April, she did not send it to Mr Kingra until August.
Mr Kingra said that Ms Te Rore first contacted him about leaks by phone on 29 June. He arranged for his preferred repairer to travel to the property from Auckland on 1 July and carry out repairs.
Ms Te Rore contacted him several days later saying that the leak was ongoing. His contractor returned on 8 July and carried out more repairs.
Ms Te Rore contacted him two weeks later saying that the leak was ongoing. His contractor returned on 24 July. He went with the contractor on this occasion. The contractor carried out more repairs but recommended that the gib on the wall be removed for further assessment and repairs.
My finding is that: a. It is not proven that Ms Te Rore contacted Mr Kingra about leaks / mould before 29 June. b. Mr Kingra responded promptly and appropriately after 29 June. c. The nature of leaks is that it is not always possible to identify the source of the problem and repair it immediately. Often it is a matter of having to wait and see if a repair has been successful. d. Mr Kingra acted promptly when Ms Te Rore told him that the leak was continuing. e. There is no evidence of any other leaks or any general mould problem at the property. f. Although the damp carpet in this room caused some loss of amenity for the tenant, this is not an instance of a landlord failing to meet their duty to maintain the premises. If the tenancy had continued beyond August, or while more invasive / extensive investigation and repairs were undertaken, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to reduce the rent. However, the tenancy ended on 30 August. There is no basis for any award of compensation or exemplary damages under this heading. Bond
Landlords must pay the bond to the Bond Centre within 23-working days of receipt. 2
A breach of this duty is an unlawful act. Exemplary damages of up to $1500 can apply. 3
Mr Kingra acknowledged that the bond was not paid to the Bond Centre within the required timeframe. Mr Kingra said that the bond was paid to the business 2 Section 19(1)(b) RTA 3 Section 19(2) RTA account, and the service station manager Nick forgot to forward the bond to the Bond Centre.
Mr Kingra remedied this promptly when it was brought to his attention.
The landlord failed to meet its legal duty, and it is appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages. In considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to: 4 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.
In this instance I accept that Mr Kingra genuinely understood that Nick had paid the bond to the Bond Centre. This does not remove liability for failing to lodge the bond, but it is a relevant mitigating factor.
This was a somewhat difficult tenancy, made more difficult by the way that it ended (as discussed below), and discovering that the bond had not been paid to the Bond Centre added to Ms Te Rore’s stress and concerns.
There is a legitimate public interest in making landlord’s accountable for failing to pay the bond to the Bond Centre.
Having regard to those factors, I will award exemplary damages of $500.00. Unlawful entry
Landlords may not enter the premises during the tenancy except in the circumstances set out in section 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If a landlord unlawfully enters the premises the Tenancy Tribunal may award exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00.
In brief, landlords may enter the premises: a. For the purpose of necessary repairs / maintenance or inspection, having given the tenant notice in writing (48 hours’ notice for inspection, 24 hours’ notice for repairs / maintenance); or b. At any time with the consent of the tenant, freely given at the time of entry.
Mr Kingra entered the premises on the afternoon of 24 July. Mr Kingra had not given written notice to Ms Te Rore. Mr Kingra said that: 4 Section 109 RTA a. Ms Te Rore was not living at the premises and had not been living there since Christmas 2024. Ms Te Rore’s sister was living there. b. The visit was organised with Ms Te Rore’s sister. c. Ms Te Rore cannot, on the one hand, complain that he failed to attend to repair issues and, on the other, refuse to allow him entry to carry out repairs.
Ms Te Rore said that: a. She was spending a lot of time with her mother because she is her mother’s primary caregiver, but she was still the tenant. b. Her sister stayed at the property as a guest. She did not exceed the maximum permitted occupants at the property. c. Mr Kingra did not tell her that he was coming up on 24 July. She found out about this from Nick. d. When she found out she sent a text message to Mr Kingra saying: Hi Raj I hear that you will be around in the Hokianga today, unfortunately I’ll be away all day. If you want to come up and see the room please give us a call when coming next so I can make time to be around e. Mr Kingra entered the premises anyway.
Mr Kingra said that he did not see Ms Te Rore’s text message until after he had been inside the property. He said that Ms Te Rore’s sister was happy to let him in.
The circumstances are unusual. In terms of the strict ‘black and white’ of the Residential Tenancies Act, Mr Kingra’s entry was unlawful. Mr Kingra had not given notice in writing of the intended entry, and he did not have the consent of the tenant.
However, I do not think that it is appropriate to award exemplary damages in this instance. It was reasonable to treat Ms Te Rore’s sister as the primary contact person given that she spent considerably more time at the premises than Ms Te Rore. It was reasonable for Mr Kingra to think that if the sister was agreeable to him and his contractors entering the premises on that day then Ms Te Rore was also agreeable. The only indication that Ms Te Rore may not be agreeable was the message that she sent at 12.07pm on that day. I accept that Mr Kingra was not aware of that message until after he had already entered the property.
Therefore, I will not make an award of exemplary damages under this heading. Termination
This was a fixed term tenancy from 23 August 2024 to 22 August 2025.
On 9 August 2025, Mr Kingra sent Ms Te Rore an email stating: As you know your fixed term tenancy is coming to an end on 23 rd of Aug 25. Please accept my 21-day notice from today to end the fixed term tenancy. I am not getting any permanent response from any contractor about this leak issue yet. It’s not easy to get the contractor out there in Hokianga. I don’t want you to be in limbo and more stressed, and don’t want you to compromise your health and safety either. It was nice to have you as a tenant.
Ms Te Rore replied, questioning whether Mr Kingra could terminate the tenancy on 21-days’ notice. Mr Kingra said that he would be willing to extent the notice period to 10 October (90-days), but Ms Te Rore said that she had made other arrangements and would accept the 30 August end date.
It is an unlawful act for a landlord to: a. Terminate a tenancy knowing that they have no legal right to terminate. 5 b. Terminate a tenancy for retaliatory reasons. A termination is retaliatory if, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated by the tenant making a complaint about the tenancy or exercising a legal right or power. 6
A fixed term tenancy automatically becomes a periodic tenancy at the expiry of the fixed term unless either the landlord or tenant gives notice during the “effective period”. 7
The effective period is the period of time between 90 days and 21 days before the end of the fixed term tenancy. 8
The last day of this fixed term tenancy was 23 August 2025. This means that the effective period ended on 2 August 2025. Mr Kingra’s notice on 9 August was outside of that period.
Therefore, Mr Kingra’s termination notice was misconceived.
However, I do not think that there are grounds for an award of exemplary damages having regard to the following factors: a. I accept that the notice was not retaliatory. Mr Kingra did not give the notice because Ms Te Rore exercised her legal right to require him to repair the leak. If that had been his intention he would have issued a termination notice in July. Mr Kingra terminated the tenancy because it was apparent that the leak was going to be complicated and difficult to 5 Section 60AA RTA 6 Section 54 RTA 7 Section 60A(1) RTA 8 Section 60A(2A) RTA repair, requiring invasive work including removing the gib on the wall of that room. Mr Kingra reasonably formed the view that such work would be significantly disruptive, and it would not be possible, or safe, to continue with the tenancy in those circumstances. b. This is not an instance of a landlord purporting to terminate a tenancy knowing that they have no legal right to do so. Mr Kingra misunderstood how the ‘effective period’ applies, and he thought that he was legally entitled to terminate on 21 days’ notice. He was only one week outside of the effective period. c. When Ms Te Rore (correctly) challenged the notice, Mr Kingra promptly offered a much longer notice period. d. At the hearing Ms Te Rore acknowledged that she also wanted the tenancy to end, and that she was comfortably able to vacate within the 21-day period. Outcome, filing fee, bond
Ms Te Rore was partially successful in her application, and I will award her the filing fee of $28.00. 9
At the hearing Ms Te Rore stated that she did not seek name suppression.
The proven claim totals $728.00. Ms Te Rore did not dispute that she owes $690.00 for water.
The remainder of the bond will be released to Ms Te Rore.
BLK Enterprises is to pay Ms Te Rore $38.00.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5324220 — Exemplary damages at 328 Hokianga Harbour Drive, Omapere, Kaikohe 0473

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5324220 — Exemplary damages at 328 Hokianga Harbour Drive, Omapere, Kaikohe 0473

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions