Tenants Awarded Compensation for Construction Work Interference

OUTCOME: Allowed

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5399655 1

[2026] NZTT 5399655, 5442228

TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT CHRISTCHURCH | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI ŌTAUTAHI

APPLICANT: [redacted] [COMPANY]

Landlords

RESPONDENT: [redacted]

Tenants

TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

ORDER

1. [APPELLANT] and [APPELLANT] as Trustees of the [NAME] [APPELLANT] [COMPANY] must pay [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] $2,396.71 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

2. The [COMPANY] is to pay the bond of $3,440.00 (BN-17513415) to [NAME] [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] immediately.

Description Landlord Tenant Rent arrears to 14 January 2026 $1,054.29 Carpet Cleaning $165.00 Carpet damage $500.00 Painting $500.00 Heat pump remote $59.00 Compensation: Interference with quiet enjoyment $4,675.00 Total award $2,278.29 $4,675.00 Net award $2,396.71 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $2,396.71

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5399655 2

Reasons:

1. All parties attended the hearing. The landlords attended by telephone. The tenants attended in person. The landlords’ agent for the last few months of the tenancy also attended.

2. The landlords have applied for rent arrears, compensation and payment from the bond following the end of the tenancy.

3. The tenants have applied for compensation relating to the condition of the premises while construction work was undertaken during the tenancy.

Rent

4. The tenancy ended on 14 January 2026. The landlord provided rent records, and the parties agreed that the arrears owing are $1,054.29.

The Landlords’ Other Claims

Law

5. At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and leave all chattels belong to the landlord.

6. The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises.

7. 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.

8. Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent).

9. Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5399655 3

Carpet

10. Carpet on the living area was stained during the tenancy. The tenants accepted responsibility for the stain but said that they had the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy and they should not have to pay for cleaning the carpet again.

11. The landlord employed a professional carpet cleaner to remove the stain at a cost of $165 and produced the invoice. Unfortunately, the stain could not be removed, and they claim the cost of the carpet cleaner and the cost of replacing the carpet limited to $500 being their insurance excess.

12. It was reasonable for the landlords to try to remove the stain. Indeed, they could have been criticised if they had not done so. The cleaning that the tenants did does not relieve them of liability for staining.

13. The staining is beyond fair wear and tear, and it was reasonable for the landlords to replace the carpet. The stain was large and obvious.

14. The cost of replacing the carpet was $1,990. The carpet was in place when the landlords bought the premises in 2020, but they could not say when it was installed. It appears to have been in good condition and there would be no justification for applying betterment to reduce the claim to below $500. The landlords are trying to sell the premises, but they did not replace other carpet and there is no reason to think that they would have replaced the carpet in any event.

15. I have therefore awarded the claims in full.

Painting

16. The landlords claim $500 insurance excess in relation to the cost of painting some walls and ceilings of the premises. They say that the tenants touched up areas of the premises, but they used the wrong shades and finish of paint, and the result was visibly unsatisfactory. The cost of painting the affected areas was considerably more than $500.

17. The tenants said that it was the contractors working on the premises who touched up the paintwork after damaging the premises during the construction work. The landlords contested that.

18. I am satisfied that the contractors did not touch up the paintwork that the landlords’ claim relates to. There were areas of the premises that were damaged by the building work, but it was confined to openings such as windows and doors. Also, the landlords employed professional painters, and it is unlikely that they would have used the wrong paint.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5399655 4

19. I find, therefore, that the tenants have not disproved liability for the paint damage and that they are liable for the insurance excess. It is fortunate, in my view, that the landlords’ insurers applied just one excess.

Heat Pump Remote

20. There were two remotes at the start of the tenancy and only one was left at the premises at the end. The tenants accepted responsibility and so I have awarded the cost of a replacement in the sum of $59.

The Tenants’ Claim

Law

21. In the tenants’ application they refer to the landlords’ healthy homes obligations. Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), a landlord’s obligations include providing and maintaining the premises in a reasonable state of repair, complying with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety and complying with Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).

22. As well, a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.

23. The Act also provides for the abatement (reduction) of rent where part or all the premises become uninhabitable.

24. There is no dispute that the construction work that the landlords undertook to the premises during the tenancy caused the tenants discomfort and diminished their enjoyment of the premises. Therefore, any or all these obligations could be applied in this case. The issue is not whether the tenants are entitled to some compensation in relation to the construction work, plainly they are, it is whether the rent reduction that the landlords gave was sufficient and if not, what compensation is sufficient?

Background

25. The landlords bought the premises in 2020 and lived in them for two years before moving away.

26. They came to sell the premises in March 2024 and discovered that the recladding of the premises that was done after the [NAME] did not have building consent. They were undecided as to what to do about it until after they rented the premises to the tenants in July 2024.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5399655 5

27. After they decided to reclad the premises, they obtained a building consent and then in March 2025 they wrote to the tenants regarding the proposed work and proposed a rent reduction from $860 per week to $800 per week from 22 April to 3 June. At that time, it was expected that the work would be completed in seven weeks.

28. That estimate proved to be optimistic. The work was not completed until October. So instead of seven weeks, it took 25 weeks. Some of that delay was due to an unforeseen defect that needed to be fixed and required another consent and some of it was due to bad weather. The tenants said that there were periods of time simply when no-one was in site. The cause of the delay is not relevant to my decision.

29. From 11 June the landlords reduced the rent further to $700 per week. It remained at that level until 8 October when it went back to $860 per week.

30. The total rent reduction amounted to $3,200. At the full rent for the 25-week period of the work the total rent payable would have been $21,500. The average rent reduction for the period was therefore approximately 15%.

The Work and Its Effect on the Tenants

31. The work consisted of a complete reclad of a substantial two-story house. The house was fully scaffolded. The tenants described how windows and a door were removed. The door was removed for a week, two windows upstairs in the hall and a bathroom were removed for two weeks and two windows downstairs in the laundry and toilet were removed for one and a half months.

32. They were without the use of the family bathroom and the downstairs toilet for the duration of the work and the window openings were covered with polyethene which Mr [NAME] had to adjust and refix from time to time to keep the rain out. Self evidently this arrangement was not effective at keep the cold out and the warmth in during those winter months.

33. There was also the disruption, inconvenience, loss of privacy and loss of use caused by the contractors and their equipment being on site during the work.

34. I am perplexed by how accommodating the tenants were of this interference with their enjoyment of the premises. Many tenants would not have allowed the work to proceed at all during their tenancy. My impression is that the landlords proposed the rent reductions, and the tenants simply accepted them without demur. It is not a case of the parties negotiating and agreeing a rent reduction with full knowledge of the implications of the work on the tenants’ living conditions.

35. The landlords submitted that the tenants did not complain about their living conditions during the work. But there was evidence that they did do so. There

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5399655 6

was, for example, a text message on 10 July about their high power bills which the landlords did not show any concern for. It was also accepted that there were telephone conversations between the parties concerning the work and the time it was taking.

36. In any case, I don’t see that any lack of complaints from the tenants about their living conditions is of much relevance. The landlords were committed to getting the work done and it should have been obvious to them how it was affecting the tenants. If they were not aware, I would call that wilful blindness.

37. I asked the landlords what they would have done if the tenants had refused to allow the work during the tenancy. They indicated that one option would have been to end the tenancy at the end of the fixed term on 30 July 2025 and then to carry out the work when the premises were unoccupied. They could also have allowed the tenancy to continue as a periodic tenancy and given a 90-day termination notice when they were ready to carry out the work. Either way they would been without rent for the duration of the work.

38. It seems to me that the landlords want their cake and to eat it. They wanted to do the work at the same time as receiving a considerable amount of rent from the tenants. That suited the landlords, and it might have suited the tenants if the rent reduction was commensurate with the deleterious effects of the work on them. In my view it wasn’t.

Remedy

39. I find that the rent reduction was manifestly insufficient to compensate the tenants for the adverse effects of the work on them and they are entitled to additional compensation.

40. There is no science or formula to assessing compensation in this type of case. But I start with the loss of amenity that the tenants suffered. They were without use of a family bathroom and downstairs toilet. Their use of the outside of the premises was also severely diminished. In terms of a rent abatement a fair reduction is 25% of the rent. Over 25 weeks that amounts to $5,355. The tenants received $3,200 leaving a shortfall of $2,175.

41. In addition, the tenants suffered discomfort, inconvenience and loss of privacy. They are entitled to be compensated for that as well. A fair amount in $100 per week. That amounts to $2,500. Together with the $2,175 further rent abatement I find that an award of $4,675 compensation is appropriate.

Result

42. After setting off the awards against each other, the landlords must pay the tenants $2,356.71 and the bond must therefore be paid to the tenants.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5399655 7

Filing Fees

43. Both sides have had success and so I make no order for payment of filing fees.

Suppression

44. There is no compelling reason for name suppression and so I decline to order any.

[NAME] 2 June 2026

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5399655 8

Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.

Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.

You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf

Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals

Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order, or the failure to make an order, where the amount in dispute on appeal is

less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work, or the failure to make an order, where the value of the

work in dispute on appeal is less than $1000.

Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.

Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.

If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit [NAME]/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].

Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi [NAME]/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki [NAME] ma runga [PHONE] ranei.

https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.[NAME] https://www.[NAME] http://www.[NAME]

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5399655 9

A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: [NAME]/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].

Reasons: