What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5429448?

The tribunal order states: Maia McGregor, Paige Lyn Galland, Sylvia Brown, Libby Hutchings and Chloe

How much money was awarded in case 5429448?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: breaches of quiet enjo…: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Aircon Remote Control: $59.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5429448?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5429448?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13715449-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5429448?

The tribunal order states: Maia McGregor, Paige Lyn Galland, Sylvia Brown, Libby Hutchings and Chloe

How much money was awarded in case 5429448?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: breaches of quiet enjo…: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Aircon Remote Control: $59.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5429448?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5429448?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13715449-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11C Rudleigh Avenue, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5429448 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5429448 — net $1,372.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation: breaches of quiet enjoyment	$1,500.00	breaches of quiet enjoyment
Compensation: failure to maintain and repair	$1,000.00	failure to maintain and repair
Repair broken cooktop (insurance excess	$1,000.00	Repair broken cooktop (insurance excess
Replace aircon remote control	$59.00	Replace aircon remote control
Carpet cleaning	$200.00	Carpet cleaning
Repair door	$690.00	Repair door
Net award	$1,372.53
Bond	$3,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,372.53

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5429448 — net $1,372.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation: breaches of quiet enjoyment	$1,500.00	breaches of quiet enjoyment
Compensation: failure to maintain and repair	$1,000.00	failure to maintain and repair
Repair broken cooktop (insurance excess	$1,000.00	Repair broken cooktop (insurance excess
Replace aircon remote control	$59.00	Replace aircon remote control
Carpet cleaning	$200.00	Carpet cleaning
Repair door	$690.00	Repair door
Net award	$1,372.53
Bond	$3,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,372.53

Order

Maia McGregor, Paige Lyn Galland, Sylvia Brown, Libby Hutchings and Chloe Lui to pay Wongeoon Vast Limited $1372.53 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below: LandlordTenant Rent arrears to 1 December 2025$1,923.53 Compensation: breaches of quiet enjoyment $1,500.00 Compensation: failure to maintain and repair $1,000.00 Repair broken cooktop (insurance excess) *$1,000.00 Replace aircon remote control *$59.00 Carpet cleaning *$200.00 Repair door$690.00 Total award$3,872.53$2,500.00 Net award$1,372.53 Bond$1,372.53$2,147.47
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,520.00 (BN-00048710) immediately apportioned as follows: Wongeoon Vast Limited : $1,372.53 Maia McGregor, Paige Lyn Galland, Sylvia Brown, Libby Hutchings and Chloe Lui: $2,147.47
The tenants’ application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for the repair cost of a handrail is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which commenced on 5 May 2026. Mr Wongeoon represented the landlord. Also present was Ying Sin (Ying), the owner’s mother, who attended the hearing as a witness.
The tenants have applied for compensation and/or exemplary damages for breaches of their quiet enjoyment and for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and refund of the bond. Background
The tenancy started on 28 December 2024 and ended on 1 December 2025.
When the tenants entered the tenancy, they knew (and accepted) that a garage conversion would be undertaken during the tenancy. That involved building contractors accessing the exterior of the premise to gain access to the building project.
The mother of the owner of the premises, identified as Ying, was to oversee the garage conversion, acting as a project manager. That meant that she was at the premises often. The tenants thought she was the landlord.
The tenants complained about Ying’s presence at the premises to Mr Wongeoon. She entered the premises on some occasions and interfered with the tenants’ peace, comfort, and privacy often.
Mr Wongeoon notified the owner about his mother’s behaviour, but it did not resolve.
The tenants also experienced repair and maintenance issues that they notified to the landlord. Due to a delay repairing the hot water cylinder they were without sufficient hot water for about one month. Also, two bedroom door panels fell off and were not adequately repaired.
After the tenancy ended, the tenants made their application for compensation and exemplary damages.
At the hearing on 5 May 2026, I heard the tenants’ application in full. Shortly before the hearing, the landlord filed a cross application. I therefore adjourned the hearing so the tenants could be notified of, and respond to, the landlord’s application.
I reconvened the hearing on 3 June 2026 and heard the landlord’s application and the tenants’ response to it. Issues
The issues to be determined are these: •Did the landlord cause or permit an interference with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in their use of the premises? •Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? •If these breaches are established, should the Tribunal award the tenants exemplary damages? •Should the Tribunal award the tenants compensation? •Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? •Has the landlord proved claims for damage by the tenants? Relevant law Statutory provisions
Section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord and that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
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; to repair nay damage beyond fair wear and tear, 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 usually 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.
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.
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. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 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 landlord cause or permit an interference with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in their use of the premises?
The tenants gave evidence that they thought Ying, the owner’s mother, was the landlord. She was not. Other than the fact that she was the project manager for the garage conversion, she had no legal standing in relation to the tenancy. Mr Wongeoon/his company was the sole landlord.
The tenants gave evidence that Ying sometimes asked to be present at the premises, but mostly she did not. Many of her visits were unannounced and occurred after 6pm. As they put it ’she was pretty much always there’.
The tenants alerted Mr Wongeoon on several occasions. He said he phoned Ying and told her she could not go to the premises without an appointment arranged by him. When Ying continued to go there, he contacted her son, the owner, and had many phone calls about Ying. He said he told the tenants to call the police if Ying continued to arrive.
On one occasion the tenants gave evidence that Ying entered a bedroom where one of the tenants and her boyfriend were naked lying on the bed. Ying denied that happened. I am inclined to believe the tenant.
Mr Wongeoon did not interfere with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy, but he permitted the interference by Ying. Although he took some actions by talking to her and her son, he could have done more.
The tenants experience a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy because their peace comfort and privacy were constantly interrupted. The incident when Ying entered a bedroom, was serious. While Ying denied the tenants’ accusations, the fact that Mr Wongeoon (and apparently the owner) recognised what was happening corroborates the tenants’ evidence.
The landlord therefore breached his/its responsibility under section 38 RTA by permitting an interference with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in their use of the premises. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?
The tenants’ evidence establishes that the landlord failed to attend to repairs in a timely manner. First, panels on a bedroom door fell off. The repairs were unsightly to say the least. Mr Wongeoon agreed that the repair was ‘quite ugly. The tenants said even after the repair, the doors dragged on the carpet. They had to use duct tape to ensure the panels were in place.
The tenants said that Ying would yell at them and tell them their boyfriends should do the repairs for free.
The tenants said they had insufficient hot water for a month. For a period of about 3 weeks the hot water cylinder made a high-pitched sound which I was able to observe and hear on the video they produced in evidence.
Mr Wongeoon said the leak in the hot water cylinder was reported on 18 August and the cylinder was replaced (arranged by Ying) on 8 September. However, the tenants said they notified the problem with the hot water cylinder 3 months earlier. They referred to their text messages to Mr Wongeoon and to Ying produced in evidence. They said that Ying came regularly to check they had emptied the bucket under the cylinder where it was leaking.
The impression I gained was that Ying (certainly) and Mr Wongeoon (probably) had a fundamental lack of understanding about who the landlord was.
The tenants suffered a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy from these delayed repairs, especially to the hot water cylinder. Being able to use a shower without hindrance is important and necessary, as is having a bedroom door that ensure privacy and closes properly.
The landlord therefore breached his/its statutory responsibility under section 45 RTA to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

Should the Tribunal award the tenants exemplary damages?

As the breaches alleged by the tenants are proved, the Tribunal must address the consequences of those breaches.
For the Tribunal to award exemplary damages, the party who seeks damages must prove that the other party acted with intent. That means that the party against whom the damages are sought turned their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately set about to commit it.
Interfering with a tenant’s right to reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy is an unlawful act if it amounts to harassment. A failure to maintain and repair the premises can also amount to an unlawful act.
Having heard the evidence, I do not find that the landlord/Mr Wongeoon acted with intent. It/he was negligent in not making sure that the interferences by Ying, the owner’s mother, ceased. Although he contacted the owner of the premises after he received complaints from the tenants he should have done more. It was he/his company alone who was the landlord. The tenancy agreement does not state that Wongeoon Vast Limited was the agent of the owner.
For her part, Ying (while not a party) seemed to me to be a person who had no idea that what she was doing was inappropriate. While she could oversee the garage conversion, she was wrong to simply enter the tenants’ premises on the occasions she did.
Because the necessary element of intent has not been proved (negligence is not sufficient) the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages in this case.
The tenants’ application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Should the Tribunal award the tenants compensation?

Compensation is a different matter. It recognises loss, in this case the tenants’ loss of enjoyment of the tenancy firstly, by having their quiet enjoyment of the tenancy diminished by the landlord’s failure to properly act to ensure that Ying did not interfere with their reasonable peace, comfort or privacy. And secondly, by not promptly repairing the hot water cylinder and by not adequately repairing the bedroom door panels on the door of one of the bedrooms. So, unlike exemplary damages, compensation is not punitive.
I find that the tenants’ suffered a considerable loss of enjoyment of this tenancy due to Ying’s actions, which the landlord failed to ensure ceased, and by the delayed or inadequate repairs.
For this loss of enjoyment of the tenancy I award the tenants compensation of $1,500.00 for the breaches of their quiet enjoyment due to the on-going interference with their reasonable peace, comfort or privacy, and compensation of $1,000.00 for the delayed/inadequate repairs.

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

The tenants accepted (conditionally) the landlord’s claim for rent arrears. I find that claim proved as of the date of the second hearing. However, I indicated that I would accept an application for rehearing just on the issue of rent arrears if the tenants had evidence that they made a payment for rent in advance close to the start of the tenancy that the landlord has not accounted for. Any application for rehearing must be made within 5 days of the date of this decision.

Has the landlord proved claims for damage by the tenants?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission 2 .
I record that the landlord withdrew the claim for a broken window upstairs at the end of the hallway, and the claim for the replacement of keys.
The tenants accepted the landlord’s claims for damage to a cooktop (limited to the amount of the insurance excess); the replacement of an aircon remote control; and carpet cleaning. I have allowed those claims, marked *, by consent.
I do not find proved a claim for damage to a handrail. The tenants gave evidence, which I accept, that the handrail was never properly affixed to the wall and would move when touched so and they took it off for inspections and placed it in the garage.
The tenants accepted the landlord’s claim for the repair of damage to a door (the internal door from the garage to the living area). They said they tried to get the door repaired but could not fit it in their car. From the quote produced in evidence, I allow the landlord $690.00 for the repair of the door as detailed in the quotation. Result
The landlord’s claims for the repair of a window upstairs at the end of the hallway and for the replacement cost of keys are withdrawn.
The landlord’s claim for the repair of a door is proved. The claims for the repair of the cooktop, the replacement of the aircon remote control and for carpet cleaning are allowed by consent.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is proved but might be the subject of an application for rehearing (time limited).
The tenants’ application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The tenants’ application for compensation is proved and is allowed in the amount of $2,500.00.
After the deduction of the award of compensation to the tenants, the tenants must pay the landlord $1,372.53 from the bond. The balance of the bond of $2,147.47 will be paid to the tenants. 2 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA
I make no award of the filing fees as both parties have succeeded in part. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenants sought name suppression. I make no order for name suppression. Their application is only partly successful as is their defence to the landlord’s application 3 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5429448 — Property damage at 11C Rudleigh Avenue, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5429448 — Property damage at 11C Rudleigh Avenue, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal award the tenants exemplary damages?

Should the Tribunal award the tenants compensation?

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

Has the landlord proved claims for damage by the tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal award the tenants exemplary damages?

Should the Tribunal award the tenants compensation?

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

Has the landlord proved claims for damage by the tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions