What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5425395?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,396.00 (6431285-006) to Ranjith

How much money was awarded in case 5425395?

Compensation: Plumbing Invoice: $287.50 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $450.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5425395?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5425395?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13552261-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5425395?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,396.00 (6431285-006) to Ranjith

How much money was awarded in case 5425395?

Compensation: Plumbing Invoice: $287.50 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $450.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5425395?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5425395?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13552261-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 4, 46 Mount Smart Road, Onehunga, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5425395 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5425395 — net $464.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$450.80		Water rates
Compensation: Plumbing invoice		$287.50	Plumbing invoice
Exemplary damages: Section 45		$600.00	Section 45
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$450.80	$915.50
Net award		$464.70
Bond		$2,396.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$464.70

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,396.00 (6431285-006) to Ranjith Kumar Ramachandran, Mounika Ravi and Vigneshwar Natarajan immediately.
Focus Property Management Limited must pay Ranjith Kumar Ramachandran, Mounika Ravi and Vigneshwar Natarajan $464.70 immediately.

The tenant’s claims in relation to the Healthy Homes standards and the noise from a neighbour are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 6 May 2026.
The tenant applied for compensation, a claim relating to the Healthy Homes standards and for exemplary damages.
The tenancy began on 26 October 2024 and ended on 6 February 2026.
The issues raised by the tenant relate to an ant infestation, a plumbing incident, noise caused by a neighbouring tenant and the condition of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenant’s claim in relation to the Healthy Homes standards is dismissed because the standards do not apply in relation to an ant infestation. Instead that issue is considered later in this order in relation to the landlord’s responsibilities as set out in the Act.
The tenant claimed that a neighbour’s child was making noise that was affecting his sleep and interfering with his reasonable peace. The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises 1 .
The landlord contacted the other tenant which I consider to be reasonable steps in the circumstances. Also, it is very difficult to limit a child from running around which may have just been normal childhood behaviour. In addition, there was limited evidence of the extent of the noise caused by the child. In the circumstances there is insufficient evidence to support a claim. The tenant’s claim in relation to the noise from the neighbour’s child is dismissed.
Ranjith Kumar Ramachandran, Mounika Ravi and Vigneshwar Natarajan claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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 failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and failed to maintain the premises in relation to the ant infestation. I find they have committed an unlawful act. 1 Section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
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.
The tenant complained that the landlord failed to provide the premises in a clean state at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant sent an email to the landlord on 28 October 2024, two days after the tenancy commenced. In the email the tenant advised that the lawns had not been mowed and the house was full of construction dust. The tenant mowed the lawns and cleaned the house.
At the hearing the landlord said that the premises were left in the same condition at the end of the tenancy, but there is no evidence and no claim before me in relation to that.
The landlord is required to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. The tenant provided photographs to confirm that the lawn had not been mowed. The photograph of the dust is not clear. I am satisfied that the landlord has failed to meet their obligation in relation to the exterior of the premises in relation to the lawn.
The tenant complained of a severe ant infestation around June 2025. An email sent to the property manager on 25 June 2025 states that they had reported the issue multiple times. The property manager responded by email on 30 June 2025 stating “the owner is aware of this issue, and agreed to arrange pest control for ants. We will advise you accordingly after the owner confirms the date.”
The tenant sent a follow up email to the property manager on 26 August 2025 stating that the issue has been reported multiple times over the past 10 months. The tenant attached photographs of the ants and advised that they had now entered the shower area.
On 28 August 2025 the property manager responding saying that she would get some quotes “tomorrow” and go from there.
The tenant said that the landlord did not employ pest management during the tenancy.
At the hearing the landlord said that the ant infestation was likely due to the tenant’s living habits, and it was not the landlord responsibility. She said that there had been no other complaints from the tenants of the other units (there are 10 units in total)
Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and cleanliness 2 . If pests are present at the state of the tenancy, it is generally the landlord’s responsibility to address the issue. If a pest problem arises during the tenancy due to the tenant’s actions, the tenant may be responsible. If the pest issue arises due to the condition of the property, it is usually the landlord’s responsibility to fix the problem and arrange pest control.
In this situation, the landlord had agreed to engage pest control to deal with the issue but did not do so. The issue was present at least eight months before the tenancy ended, although I note that the tenant asked for it not to be dealt with in the notice period at the end of the tenancy.
Given that the landlord had agreed to act but had failed to do so. Given that the ants were appearing in the bathroom I do not consider that it is likely to have been due to the tenant’s actions. The landlord should have followed through with the plan to engage a contractor who would have been able to report on where the ants were coming from and the likely cause of the infestation.
The landlord knew about the ant infestation but took no steps following advising that it would. The landlord also knew that the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean state but did not offer to cover the cost of cleaning or lawnmowing.
These issues impacted on the tenant. The landlord needs to comply with the Act in relation to their responsibilities at the beginning and during the tenancy.
I consider that exemplary damages of $600.00 are reasonable in the circumstances.
There was a plumbing issue at the premises on 5 June 2025. The tenant had reported that water was leaking from the hot water cylinder outlet. The tenant said that the hallway at the premises filled with water. The tenant was advised to turn the water off at the mains and a plumber attended the following morning. Unfortunately, that plumber was unable to fix the issue, so a different plumber was employed and he attended later that night.
The plumber’s invoice dated 6 January 2026 states that there was too much food in the kitchen line which caused the blockage. There is a waste disposal unit in the kitchen which the tenant described using. The landlord produced an email from the other plumber confirmed that the blockage was caused by waste food.
If the tenant has used the waste disposal as it is intended to be used, and there was no evidence that he hadn’t, including with how he described using it, and therefore there must be an issue with the plumbing. In this situation the 2 Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 landlord required the tenant to pay the plumber’s invoice, which in my view should not have happened.
There is no evidence that the tenant was at fault and therefore this is a maintenance issue. The amount of the plumber’s invoice is reimbursed to the tenant.
Before the hearing the parties agreed that the tenant owed for water rates totalling $450.80. That amount is deducted from the tenant’s award.
Because Ranjith Kumar Ramachandran, Mounika Ravi, Vigneshwar Natarajan has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5425395 — net $464.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$450.80		Water rates
Compensation: Plumbing invoice		$287.50	Plumbing invoice
Exemplary damages: Section 45		$600.00	Section 45
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$450.80	$915.50
Net award		$464.70
Bond		$2,396.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$464.70

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,396.00 (6431285-006) to Ranjith Kumar Ramachandran, Mounika Ravi and Vigneshwar Natarajan immediately.
Focus Property Management Limited must pay Ranjith Kumar Ramachandran, Mounika Ravi and Vigneshwar Natarajan $464.70 immediately.

The tenant’s claims in relation to the Healthy Homes standards and the noise from a neighbour are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 6 May 2026.
The tenant applied for compensation, a claim relating to the Healthy Homes standards and for exemplary damages.
The tenancy began on 26 October 2024 and ended on 6 February 2026.
The issues raised by the tenant relate to an ant infestation, a plumbing incident, noise caused by a neighbouring tenant and the condition of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenant’s claim in relation to the Healthy Homes standards is dismissed because the standards do not apply in relation to an ant infestation. Instead that issue is considered later in this order in relation to the landlord’s responsibilities as set out in the Act.
The tenant claimed that a neighbour’s child was making noise that was affecting his sleep and interfering with his reasonable peace. The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises 1 .
The landlord contacted the other tenant which I consider to be reasonable steps in the circumstances. Also, it is very difficult to limit a child from running around which may have just been normal childhood behaviour. In addition, there was limited evidence of the extent of the noise caused by the child. In the circumstances there is insufficient evidence to support a claim. The tenant’s claim in relation to the noise from the neighbour’s child is dismissed.
Ranjith Kumar Ramachandran, Mounika Ravi and Vigneshwar Natarajan claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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 failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and failed to maintain the premises in relation to the ant infestation. I find they have committed an unlawful act. 1 Section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
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.
The tenant complained that the landlord failed to provide the premises in a clean state at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant sent an email to the landlord on 28 October 2024, two days after the tenancy commenced. In the email the tenant advised that the lawns had not been mowed and the house was full of construction dust. The tenant mowed the lawns and cleaned the house.
At the hearing the landlord said that the premises were left in the same condition at the end of the tenancy, but there is no evidence and no claim before me in relation to that.
The landlord is required to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. The tenant provided photographs to confirm that the lawn had not been mowed. The photograph of the dust is not clear. I am satisfied that the landlord has failed to meet their obligation in relation to the exterior of the premises in relation to the lawn.
The tenant complained of a severe ant infestation around June 2025. An email sent to the property manager on 25 June 2025 states that they had reported the issue multiple times. The property manager responded by email on 30 June 2025 stating “the owner is aware of this issue, and agreed to arrange pest control for ants. We will advise you accordingly after the owner confirms the date.”
The tenant sent a follow up email to the property manager on 26 August 2025 stating that the issue has been reported multiple times over the past 10 months. The tenant attached photographs of the ants and advised that they had now entered the shower area.
On 28 August 2025 the property manager responding saying that she would get some quotes “tomorrow” and go from there.
The tenant said that the landlord did not employ pest management during the tenancy.
At the hearing the landlord said that the ant infestation was likely due to the tenant’s living habits, and it was not the landlord responsibility. She said that there had been no other complaints from the tenants of the other units (there are 10 units in total)
Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and cleanliness 2 . If pests are present at the state of the tenancy, it is generally the landlord’s responsibility to address the issue. If a pest problem arises during the tenancy due to the tenant’s actions, the tenant may be responsible. If the pest issue arises due to the condition of the property, it is usually the landlord’s responsibility to fix the problem and arrange pest control.
In this situation, the landlord had agreed to engage pest control to deal with the issue but did not do so. The issue was present at least eight months before the tenancy ended, although I note that the tenant asked for it not to be dealt with in the notice period at the end of the tenancy.
Given that the landlord had agreed to act but had failed to do so. Given that the ants were appearing in the bathroom I do not consider that it is likely to have been due to the tenant’s actions. The landlord should have followed through with the plan to engage a contractor who would have been able to report on where the ants were coming from and the likely cause of the infestation.
The landlord knew about the ant infestation but took no steps following advising that it would. The landlord also knew that the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean state but did not offer to cover the cost of cleaning or lawnmowing.
These issues impacted on the tenant. The landlord needs to comply with the Act in relation to their responsibilities at the beginning and during the tenancy.
I consider that exemplary damages of $600.00 are reasonable in the circumstances.
There was a plumbing issue at the premises on 5 June 2025. The tenant had reported that water was leaking from the hot water cylinder outlet. The tenant said that the hallway at the premises filled with water. The tenant was advised to turn the water off at the mains and a plumber attended the following morning. Unfortunately, that plumber was unable to fix the issue, so a different plumber was employed and he attended later that night.
The plumber’s invoice dated 6 January 2026 states that there was too much food in the kitchen line which caused the blockage. There is a waste disposal unit in the kitchen which the tenant described using. The landlord produced an email from the other plumber confirmed that the blockage was caused by waste food.
If the tenant has used the waste disposal as it is intended to be used, and there was no evidence that he hadn’t, including with how he described using it, and therefore there must be an issue with the plumbing. In this situation the 2 Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 landlord required the tenant to pay the plumber’s invoice, which in my view should not have happened.
There is no evidence that the tenant was at fault and therefore this is a maintenance issue. The amount of the plumber’s invoice is reimbursed to the tenant.
Before the hearing the parties agreed that the tenant owed for water rates totalling $450.80. That amount is deducted from the tenant’s award.
Because Ranjith Kumar Ramachandran, Mounika Ravi, Vigneshwar Natarajan has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5425395 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 46 Mount Smart Road, Onehunga,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5425395 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 46 Mount Smart Road, Onehunga,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions