Landlord ordered to pay tenant almost $5000 after child fell through hole in floor
A property management dispute in New Zealand has resulted in a Tenancy Tribunal ruling against the property owners, NNDS Limited, and the managing company, Crystal Realty Limited, trading as Harcourts Mount Roskill. The case highlights the challenges landlords face when balancing maintenance obligations with planned property redevelopment, and the rights of tenants to habitable living conditions.
Delayed Development and Tenant Concerns
Initially, NNDS Limited intended to demolish the property in April 2024 as part of a larger 29-lot residential redevelopment. However, shifting market conditions led to a postponement of those plans by two to three years. A tenant remained in the property following this change, but continued to experience issues with the home’s condition, ultimately leading to a formal complaint.
Ownership and Management Structure
Company records reveal a complex ownership structure. Nick Kochhar holds a 33% stake in NNDS Limited, alongside Siddharth Malhotra and Deepak Bhatnagar, who each own equal shares. Kochhar also co-owns Crystal Realty Limited with Virendra Kumar Verma, holding a 50% share in that company. Both Kochhar and Verma are listed as team members at the Harcourts Roskill branch, but declined to comment when contacted.
Specific Issues and Tribunal Findings
The tenant raised multiple concerns regarding the property’s condition, including holes in the kitchen floor – one of which caused an injury to her daughter – a malfunctioning heating system, faulty appliances, and electrical issues. While some claims were dismissed, the tribunal upheld complaints related to heating, flooring defects, electrical sockets, and oven malfunctions.
Specifically, the tenant reported holes in the kitchen floor as early as July 2023. Although floorboards were replaced in September 2023, the lino remained unrepaired until July 2025. The oven required two replacements, the first in September 2023 with a faulty model, and the final replacement occurring in September 2025. A non-functioning heat pump was initially supplemented by a wood pellet burner, which also required replacement, leaving the tenant reliant on costly oil heaters.
The landlord argued that the planned demolition influenced their repair decisions, stating they never intended to breach their legal obligations. They claimed to weigh necessary repairs against cosmetic improvements or those exceeding their legal requirements. However, the tribunal found that the landlord was aware of the heating deficit by May 2025 but failed to address it promptly.
Financial Outcome
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered NNDS Limited to pay the tenant $4972, including a $100 compensation for a power rebate resulting from the inadequate heating. Claims related to a broken kitchen door, hallway flooring, a leaking roof, and failure to meet Healthy Homes Standards were dismissed.
Frequently Asked Questions
What issues did the tenant successfully claim against the landlord?
The tenant successfully claimed compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the heating, repair holes in the flooring, fix faulty electrical sockets, and address issues with the ovens.
How did the landlord justify the delays in repairs?
The landlord told the tribunal that the planned demolition of the property influenced their repair and maintenance decisions, but acknowledged that repairs sometimes took longer than they should have.
What was the total amount of compensation awarded to the tenant?
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the landlord to pay the tenant $4972, which included $100 for a power rebate.
How might landlords navigate similar situations involving planned redevelopment and tenant rights to ensure compliance and minimize disputes?