Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5392379 — Rent arrears at 89 Fairview Road, Katikati, Katikati 3129, Katikati Motel
Published 12 March 2026 · Application 5392379
Tenant favoured
- Rent arrears
- Exemplary damages
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Tenant favoured
From published order
Location
Katikati
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
A Macpherson
Dispute themes
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears to 31 March 2026 | $12,185.71 | Rent arrears to 31 March 2026 | |
| Bond not lodged | $500.00 | Bond not lodged | |
| Compensation: approx 20% of all rent paid | $5,485.71 | approx 20% of all rent paid | |
| Exemplary damages | $6,200.00 | Exemplary damages | |
| Total award | $12,185.71 | $12,185.71 |
Claims and awards for application 5392379. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to 31 March 2026
- Amount
- $12,185.71
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears to 31 March 2026
Bond not lodged
- Amount
- $500.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Bond not lodged
Compensation: approx 20% of all rent paid
- Amount
- $5,485.71
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- approx 20% of all rent paid
Exemplary damages
- Amount
- $6,200.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Exemplary damages
Total award
Landlord $12,185.71 · Tenant $12,185.71
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- By agreement, the tenancy of Milton Wayne Pettigrew and Sheila Tepania Pettigrew at 89 Fairview Road, Katikati, Katikati 3129, Katikati Motel is terminated, and possession is granted to Helen Xu and Ocean Koha Property Management Limited, at 5.00pm on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
- Milton Wayne Pettigrew and Sheila Tepania Pettigrew owe Helen Xu and Ocean Koha Property Management Limited $12,185.71.
- Helen Xu and Ocean Koha Property Management Limited owe Milton Wayne Pettigrew and Sheila Tepania Pettigrew $12,185.71.
- As a consequence of Orders 2 and 3 above, neither party is required to make any payment to the other.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- This order should be read in conjunction with a previous Tribunal order dated 5 February 2026 which relates to this tenancy.
- The tenants live in a 3-bedroom house at the Katikati Motel.
- This tenancy commenced on 4 November 2024 and will end by agreement of the parties on Tuesday 31 March 2026.
- The tenants are seeking the following: -Payment of $1,500.00 from the landlord to the Bond Centre and exemplary damages for the bond not being lodged. -Work orders x 10 for maintenance issues. -Compensation and exemplary damages for landlord’s failure to maintain the premises and non-compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards.
- The landlord initially sought termination of the tenancy and rent arrears but has now agreed the tenancy will end on 31 March 20206. The issue of rent arrears remains.
- I decline to make any Work Orders as this tenancy is shortly coming to an end as agreed.
- The issues to be decided are as follows: -What are the rent arrears? -Did the tenants pay a bond? Should exemplary damages be awarded? -Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises? -If so, what orders are appropriate in the circumstances? -Should the order be made against both respondents? Rent arrears
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, and there is no dispute that rent has not been paid since 26 November 2025. The landlord has provided two rent summaries. The first takes into account some cash payments made. The second summary dates from 23 June 2025 and the landlord says that rent was paid in full up to this date.
- The tenants provided a bank statement and say that say that they paid extra in cash but were unable to provide any evidence in support. The tenants say that rent was reduced from $650.00 to $550.00 when they took care of mowing, but this stopped on 2 November 2025.
- I find the rent records inaccurate and confusing, and the amount of rent being charged appears to fluctuate throughout the tenancy. I have calculated the total amount of rent paid by these tenants as $26,850.00. I find it likely that rent was up to date on 22 June 2025 as stated on the rent summary. I also find that rent was $550.00 per week until 2 November 2025 when the tenants were taking care of the garden and mowing. Thereafter, rent reverted to $650.00 per week as previously.
- I calculate rent arrears due and owing as $12,185.71 to 31 March 2026. Did the tenants pay a Bond? Should exemplary damages be awarded?
- The tenants claim the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time. The tenants want the bond to be lodged, and they seek exemplary damages.
- A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The landlord says that the payment of $1,500.00 on 4 November 2024 from MSD, was rent in advance and not bond. They say that the next payment of rent was received 3 weeks later.
- I find that the payment of $1,500.00 was for bond and not rent in advance. The letter from the landlord to MSD dated 22 October 2024 clearly refers to a $1,500 ‘security deposit’ which would cover any loss caused by the tenant.
- I find that a bond was paid on behalf of the tenants and the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to lodge it with the Bond Centre.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- I find that the landlord failed to lodge the bond as required despite being aware of her obligations under the Act as she stated at the hearing. The bond is the tenant’s money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre to protect the tenant’s interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.
- Taking into account the fact that the bond has been applied to rent arrears, I award $500.00 exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale.
- As this tenancy is due to end on 31 March, I decline to order that the bond now be lodged with the Bond Centre.
Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?
- Milton Wayne Pettigrew and Sheila Tepania Pettigrew claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenants are seeking compensation and exemplary damages for the poor living conditions, and they say this should off-set their rent arrears.
- Under section 45, a landlord must (of relevance here): provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 comply with the healthy homes standards comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
- Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The landlord does not dispute that the tenants helped to clean and remove rubbish at the start of the tenancy. The landlord also does not dispute that the photographs provided by the tenants are a true and accurate representation of the premises from the start and throughout this tenancy.
- I find that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 and committed an unlawful act. The tenants were provided with a home that was not reasonably clean nor in a reasonable state of repair. The photographs show the premises is in a poor condition. The stove has not been working since September 2024, there is mould in the bathroom and kitchen, there is a lack of window catches for ventilation, and there is an infestation of cockroaches and rats largely due to the large amount of rubbish accumulated around the motel.
- The tenants have also provided an email from the Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Team TCIT). TCIT undertook a visit to the premises on 23 July 2025 and found damaged flooring due to water leaks from faulty plumbing, damaged kitchen bench and rotten timber, the premises generally was in poor condition and in need of remedial maintenance, there were no smoke alarms, and no extractor fans.
If so, what orders are appropriate in the circumstances?
- I find it appropriate to award compensation for loss of amenity, and exemplary damages in this case.
- I award $6,200.00 exemplary damages due to the multiple breaches, lack of any consideration for Healthy Homes Standards, the general poor condition of the premises, and the effect on the tenants. I also award $5,485.71 compensation which equates to approximately 20% of all rent paid by the tenants. This means that the rent arrears awarded to the landlord are off-set by compensation and exemplary damages awarded to the tenants.
- I make these awards in light of the fact that this is a case where the overall respective merits of the parties’ claims are evenly balanced. General compensation and exemplary damages both involve a number of discretionary factors and there are occasions when it is appropriate that neither party has to pay a financial award to the other party.
- In the circumstances of this case, I find that a fair and equitable outcome is that neither party has any further liability to the other.
Should the order be made against both respondents?
- The tenants say that any order should be made only against Helen Xu personally as she signed all the letters to MSD at the start on Katikati Motel headed notepaper as Business Director, and she is the sole director of Ocean Koha Property Management Limited. The tenants say they were told to start paying to an account in the name of Ocean Koha Property Management Limited in July 2025.
- The landlord says that only Ocean Koha Property Management Limited should be named on any orders as the property is leased to the company. The landlord says that Ocean Koha Property Management Limited trades as the Katikati Motel.
- I find it appropriate to make the order against both Helen Xu and Ocean Koha Property Management Limited because documentation at the start of the tenancy refers only to Helen Xu; albeit on Katikati Motel headed notepaper. As far as the tenants were aware, they were entering into a contract with Helen Xu.
- Section 25(2) of the Companies Act 1993 provides that where a document that evidences or creates a legal obligation of a company is issued or signed by or on behalf of the company; and the name of the company is incorrectly stated in the document, every person who issued or signed the document is liable to the same extent as the company.
- I make an order accordingly. Filing fee
- I decline to make any award for the respective filing fees.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s109(3), s19(1), s19(2), s2, s2016, s25(2), s45, s45(1A), s9
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Property management
- OCEAN KOHA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED (respondent)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5392379?
The tribunal order states: By agreement, the tenancy of Milton Wayne Pettigrew and Sheila Tepania Pettigrew at
How much money was awarded in case 5392379?
Compensation: approx 20% of all rent…: $5,485.71 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $6,200.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $12,185.71 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5392379?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5392379?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13256411-Tribunal_Order.pdf.