What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4713298 about?

The tribunal order states: Hannah Burndred and Regan Burndred must pay [The tenant/s] $6,794.62

How much money was awarded in case 4713298?

Compensation: maintenance and health…: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Power Costs: $1,209.39 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,035.21 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4713298?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4713298?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10186823-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4713298 about?

The tribunal order states: Hannah Burndred and Regan Burndred must pay [The tenant/s] $6,794.62

How much money was awarded in case 4713298?

Compensation: maintenance and health…: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Power Costs: $1,209.39 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,035.21 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4713298?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4713298?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10186823-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4713298 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4713298 — Exemplary damages | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4713298 — net $6,794.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears less bond retained by the landlords	$2,035.21		Rent arrears less bond retained by the landlords
Compensation: maintenance and healthy homes		$2,000.00	maintenance and healthy homes
Exemplary damages: failing to insulate and draughts		$3,600.00	failing to insulate and draughts
Exemplary damages: turning off water		$600.00	turning off water
Exemplary damages: failing to lodge the bond		$1,400.00	failing to lodge the bond
Compensation: power costs		$1,209.39	power costs
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$2,035.21	$8,829.83
Net award		$6,794.62
Bond		$1,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$6,794.62

Claims and awards for application 4713298 — net $6,794.62 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears less bond retained by the landlords

Amount: $2,035.21
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears less bond retained by the landlords

Compensation: maintenance and healthy homes

Amount: $2,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: maintenance and healthy homes

Exemplary damages: failing to insulate and draughts

Amount: $3,600.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: failing to insulate and draughts

Exemplary damages: turning off water

Amount: $600.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: turning off water

Exemplary damages: failing to lodge the bond

Amount: $1,400.00
Awarded to: Tenant

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee Rent arrears

Order

Hannah Burndred and Regan Burndred must pay [The tenant/s] $6,794.62 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

All parties attended the first hearing on 12 December 2023. Only the tenants attended the second hearing, held by telephone on 5 March 2024.
Both the landlords and tenants have made applications to the Tribunal.
The tenancy had ended by the date of the first hearing.
The landlords claim payment of rent owing. The tenants claim compensation and exemplary damages for alleged breaches of maintenance and Healthy Homes Standards, interference with water services, and power costs. The tenants also claim that a 90-day termination notice given to them by the landlords was retaliatory.
A bond of $1,600.00 has been paid by the tenants for this tenancy and was intended to be added to a transfer of a further $1,400.00 from the bond for a previous tenancy at a different address. Background
The tenants previously rented a property owned by the landlords in another town. The landlords wanted to sell that property and the tenants wanted to move out of the area.
The landlords offered to rent the tenants the house in which they had been living and themselves moved into a house-bus on the same one-acre property.
The parties signed a tenancy agreement for these premises with a start date of 3 June 2023 at a weekly rent of $750.00 and the total bond of $3,000.00.
The tenants soon found it difficult to pay the rent and disagreement arose about the tenants’ water use. This is a rural property and water for the tenancy premises mainly comes from a rainwater tank. Further dispute arose about the condition of the house.
The landlords say that they were in the process of renovating the tenancy premises and that the tenants were aware of this when they agreed to rent it. The tenants say that they did not realise how much work still needed to be done and what it would be like living there.
The tenants emailed the landlords on 1 September 2023 and raised concerns about the house and the tenancy. Later that same day, the landlords gave them 90-days’ written notice to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that the premises were to be substantially renovated.
The tenants moved out by the end date specified in the notice which was 29 November 2023.
The fact that the tenancy had ended by the date of the first hearing meant that I did not need to decide whether to set aside the notice of termination on the grounds that it was retaliatory. However, the issue is still relevant and important, so I do consider it in this decision. Issues
The issues to be decided are:- a. Do the tenants owe rent? b. Was the landlords’ 90-day notice of termination retaliatory? c. Did the landlords’ breach their maintenance, insulation and/or Healthy

Homes Standards obligations?

d. Did the landlords interfere with the water supply without a legally allowed reason? e. Are the landlords required to compensate the tenants for power costs? f. Have the landlords breached the bond laws?

Compensation may be awarded to a non-breaching party to recover expenses or loss, or as a lump sum or reduction of rent where the tenancy agreement or the law has been breached. The Tribunal can recognise non-financial loss such as inconvenience and stress, where appropriate.
Exemplary damages are like a fine or a penalty and can only be awarded for an intentional breach of specified “unlawful acts” (which are listed in Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The Tribunal must decide whether it is just to award these after considering the breaching party’s intent, the effect of the act, the interests of the innocent party, and the public interest; see s109(3) RTA.

Do the tenants owe rent?

The landlords supplied a rent ledger at the first hearing. I gave both parties the chance to check bank statements and provide me with any evidence.
The tenants have supplied their bank statements. These show that the landlords’ rent ledger misses one payment of $150.00 made by AL on 15 August 2023.
The evidence includes a text sent from the landlords to the tenants on 5 September 2023 in which the landlords agree to reduce the rent to $400.00 per week “for the remainder of your tenancy” and also say “we will forget about the missed payments”. The landlords’ rent ledger claims rent at the rate of $400.00 per week from 2 September 2023 until the end of the tenancy.
Both parties agree that the landlords’ refunded $400.00 paid by the tenants on 8 November 2023 so that payment does not appear in the ledger.
I have replicated the rent ledger below (from week 10) with the correct figures. WeeksRent due date Rent period from Rent period to Rent amount due Rent amount paid Rent paid date Arrears 108/8/235/8/2311/8/23750.00600.008/8/23900.00 1115/8/2312/8/2318/8/23750.00750.0015/8/23900.00 1222/8/2319/8/2325/8/23750.00--1,650.00 1329/8/2326/8/231/9/23750.00400.0031/8/232,000.00 145/9/232/9/238/9/23400.00400.005/9/232,000.00 1512/9/239/9/2315/9/23400.00400.0012/9/232,000.00 1619/9/2316/9/2322/9/23400.00400.0019/9/232,000.00 1726/9/2323/9/2329/9/23400.00300.0026/9/232,100.00 183/10/2330/9/236/10/23400.00400.003/10/232,100.00 1910/10/237/10/2313/10/23400.00-2,500.00 2017/10/2314/10/2320/10/23400.00300.0017/10/232,600.00 2124/10/2321/10/2327/10/23400.00-3,000.00 2231/10/2328/10/233/11/23400.00900.0031/10/232,500.00 237/11/234/11/2310/11/23400.00350.007/11/232,550.00 2414/11/2311/11/2317/11/23400.00-2,950.00 2521/11/2318/11/2324/11/23400.00-3,350.00 2628/11/2325/11/2329/11/23285.71-3,635.71
My decisions are:- a. That the tenancy ended on 29 November 2023. This was the date given in the landlords’ termination notice and the date the tenants emailed to say that the house was empty and clean. b. The landlords’ offered not to seek payment of the missed rent owing as at 2 September 2023. The amount owing at this point was $2,000.00. c. I have not deducted this amount from the rent arrears owing. Instead, I have considered whether the tenants should be awarded compensation for breach of maintenance, insulation and Healthy Homes Standards obligations (see later in this decision). I consider that this is a fair way to address the offer made by the landlords to “forget” 1 about the rent arrears relating to the weeks of the tenancy when rent was being charged at $750.00 per week. d. The amount owing by the tenants for rent up to the end date of the tenancy is $3,635.71. 2
I have deducted the $1,600.00 in bond money kept by the landlords from the amount of rent owing by the tenants. This leaves rent owing of $2,035.21 which is the amount I have awarded in this order. Was the landlords’ 90-day notice of termination retaliatory?
The tenants say that the notice the landlords gave them on 1 September 2023 to terminate the tenancy was a retaliatory response to two emails the tenants had sent to the landlords that same day in which they communicated concerns about the tenancy.
The tenants’ emails explained that they could not get any more financial help from WINZ 3 because that agency and a social worker, from another agency also assisting the family, were asking questions about the tenancy.
The concerns raised included the problems with running out of tank water and asking why the rent was so high when the house had unfinished walls, floors, and ceilings. The emails said that WINZ was asking why the healthy homes compliance statements in the tenancy agreement stated that the house was fully compliant when it clearly was not.
The response from the landlords (later that same day) was to give the tenants the notice to terminate the tenancy, saying that if they wanted the house up to standard then it would need to be fully renovated and they could not remain living there while that happened. 4
The law says that a landlord has a legal right to terminate a tenancy after giving at least 90 days’ notice if extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out or started within 90 days of the termination date and it would not be reasonably practicable for tenants to remain living there while the work is done; see s51(2)(f) RTA. 1 See paragraph 19 above and the text from the landlords to the tenants on 5 September 2023. 2 Rent ledge shows arrears of $3,635.71. A deduction of the $2,000.00 that the landlords’ said to “forget about” in their text dated 5 September 2023 gives a total owing of $1,635.71. 3 Work and Income New Zealand which is the common name for the Ministry of Social Development agency that manages state benefits and assistance on behalf of the government. 4 Email from HB to AL on 1 September 2023 at 3:10:30pm.
However, if the tenant proves that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord, then the Tribunal must declare that the termination notice is of no effect because it is retaliatory. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The penalty is high because the law recognises that tenants must be free to exercise their legal rights or make legitimate complaints without a landlord taking steps to terminate their tenancy.
My decision is that the notice of termination was retaliatory. The landlords issued the notice on the same day that the tenants had emailed them their complaints.
However, it is also true that the premises need substantial renovation, so the reason given for the termination of the tenancy is genuine.
In my view, the core issue is that the landlords chose to rent out a house that was clearly not up to the legal standard for tenancy premises. For this reason, I have decided to address compensation and exemplary damages as part of the claims for breach of maintenance and Healthy Homes Standards rather than under the claim for retaliatory notice. The law on landlord maintenance and Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) obligations
A landlord has legal obligations to:- a. provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair (s45(1)(b) RTA), b. provide compliant smoke alarms (s45(1)(ba) RTA), c. comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (including insulation requirements) within 120 days of any tenancy start date after 27 August 2022 5 (s45(1)(bb) RTA), d. comply with all laws relating to buildings, health and safety (s45(1)(c) RTA) including that every living room in every dwelling is required to have a fireplace and chimney or other approved form of heating, 6 e. provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply (s45(1)(ca) RTA). 5 Clause 2 of Schedule 1, Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (RT(HHS) Regs). 6 Regulation 6, Housing Improvement Regulations 1947.
All of the above obligations apply even if a tenant knows the state of the premises at the time that the tenancy is entered into; see s45(3) RTA.
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 HHS compliance date for this tenancy was 30 September 2023. 7
The HHS require that these premises have:- a. compliant ceiling (R2.9 or 120mm) and underfloor (R1.3) insulation 8 , b. the main living room contains a qualifying heater 9 capable of maintaining a temperature in that room of 18°C 10 , c. bathrooms and kitchens have extractor fans and other rooms have windows or doors opening to the outside 11 , d. premises must be free from unintentional gaps between, and holes in, building elements which allow unreasonable draughts 12 , e. premises have an efficient drainage system for ground and roof water 13 and an underfloor moisture barrier (if there is an enclosed subfloor) 14 .
Insulation in the ceiling and underfloor has been required to a minimum standard since 1 July 2019. 15 Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 and underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
There is an exemption to having to comply with the HHS when a landlord has applied for consent to demolish or substantially rebuild premises with the work to begin within 12 months of the start of the tenancy. 16 The landlords did not raise this and there is no evidence the exemption applies. 7 120 days after the tenancy start date of 3 June 2023. 8 Regulations 14 to 18, RT(HHS) Regs. The “R” value is the resistance to heat loss. 9 Regulation 9 RT(HHS) Regs. A fixed heater of at least 1.5 kW, with thermostat (if an electric heater or heat pump). Unacceptable heaters are an open fire, an unflued combustion heater, or an electric heater if the required heating capacity is greater than 2.4 kW. 10 Calculated in accordance with Schedule 2 RT(HHS) Regs or the Tenancy Services online ‘Heating Assessment Tool’ which requires input of the measurements of the living area’s walls and windows. 11 Regulations 21-24 RT(HHS) Regs. Kitchen extractor fan ducting must be a minimum of 150mm or an exhaust capacity of 50 litres per second, bathroom of 120mm or 25 litres per second. 12 Regulations 25 and 26 RT(HHS) Regs. 13 Regulation 27 RT(HHS) Regs. 14 Regulation 28 RT(HHS) Regs. 15 Regulations 12 to 16, Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. 16 Regulation 31, RT(HHS) Regs

Did the landlords breach the maintenance, insulation and Healthy Homes Standards?

The core issue in this case is that the house at this address was in the process of still being renovated by the landlords and was not in a suitable condition to be rented out.
The tenants supplied photographs and have proved that:- a. There was no underfloor insulation. b. The internal walls, ceilings, and floor were unfinished. Photographs show:- i. gaps and holes (some appear to be drill holes) in the floorboards through to the outside, ii. missing ceiling panels in at least one room which left the room open to the roof space and ceiling insulation exposed, iii. a large gap (estimated to be 3-6cm wide) in the ceiling along the length of the wall in which a fireplace and chimney are situated also leaving the room open to the roof space and ceiling insulation exposed, iv. a section of at least one wall and the interior of a wardrobe with no gib-board attached (leaving open framing into the wall cavity), v. no skirting boards along the bottoms or tops of several internal walls throughout the house which left gaps into the roof and wall cavities, vi. a large hole in one bedroom wall taped up with duct-tape, vii. carpet that did not reach the edges of the floors so left the gaps in the floorboards and at the bottom of walls exposed.
The landlords openly acknowledge the unfinished condition of the house and accuracy of the tenants’ photos. They agree that there is no underfloor insulation, no ventilation fan in the bathroom and that there are draughts because of the unfinished interior.
They say that they topped up the ceiling insulation just prior to the tenants moving in and recently installed a ground moisture barrier underneath the house. There was no evidence to verify these two issues however neither did the tenants bring evidence to prove breaches of these requirements.
The exterior of the house is also unfinished. This was not a focus in the hearing however I note that the photos show that there are no steps up to at least two sets of exterior doors (leaving a drop to the ground) and incomplete baseboards leaving gaps from the outside to the underfloor cavity.
The evidence as to whether the heating in the living area complied is less clear. The tenants’ photos show an old wood burner fireplace in the lounge which they said they used (the landlords provided firewood). There are gaps around the firebox (a faceplate appears to be missing) and large gaps into the original brick fireplace and chimney. I don’t know if the chimney is open to the roof or if a flue has been installed and sealed. Both parties agree that the landlords purchased a new wood burner during the tenancy but that it was not installed.
The landlords say they provided a “Sunshine blade” electric heater for the lounge and that they have been told that this complies with the HHS. They did not have evidence to show the kilowatt capacity of the heater or to verify the calculation they say they made of the heating capacity required for the living area.
My decision is that the old wood burner was probably sufficient to comply with the heating requirements before the HHS compliance date. However, the landlords have not proved that the heating complied with the higher HHS standard after 30 September 2023.
The breaches that have been proven or admitted are:- a. A breach of the insulation requirements because there was no underfloor insulation, and this has been required since 1 July 2019; b. Failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair because of the unfinished walls and ceiling inside, and the holes in the floor and walls, all of which caused unreasonable draughts, c. A breach of the HHS heating, draught stopping, and ventilation standards after 30 September 2023 (the compliance date for the HHS for this tenancy).
The law states that these breaches are unlawful acts for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenants have applied for compensation and exemplary damages. Compensation is intended to recognise loss and the Tribunal can quantify this in a variety of ways including as reimbursement of expenses, a reduction of rent, or a lump sum. Exemplary damages are punitive.
I award compensation of $2,000.00 to recognise that the tenants suffered detriment and stress from living in this cold and unfinished house. This amount is equal to the amount of rent arrears that the landlords offered to forgo.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may also 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 breaches were clearly intentional. These are experienced landlords, and they knew that the premises were unfinished. They also falsely completed the Healthy Homes compliance statements in the tenancy agreement stating that there was underfloor insulation when there was not, that the heating complied when there is no evidence that they had measured this, and that there were no unreasonable draughts when the walls, ceilings and floors had large gaps in them.
I now consider the factors in s109 RTA:- a. The landlords say that their intent was to help the tenants with accommodation. However, they charged a very high rent to tenants receiving government benefits and in exchange for sub-standard housing. To make matters worse, the tenancy started in mid-winter and the landlords failed to prioritise finishing the internal renovations and complying with the Healthy Homes Standards by the compliance date of 30 September 2023. I find their likely intent was to profit with little regard for the tenants. b. The effect of the unfinished premises was that the tenants (who had young children) lived in a cold house and could not afford to meet their other basic living costs of food, power, and clothing because the high rent used most of their benefit income. c. The interests of the tenants are that they are not taken advantage of because they find it difficult to find housing. They are entitled to safe, warm, fairly- priced housing. d. There is a public interest. It is difficult when there is a shortage of rental housing. Tenants are desperate for a house and landlords may say that they cannot afford to upgrade the house to comply with the legal standards. The simple fact is that if rent is being charged, in this case a very high amount, then the house must be compliant.
Taking all the factors into account, I do consider it just to award exemplary damages of $3,600.00, which is 50% of the maximum and is for all breaches. Water supply
The premises are in a rural location and the water supply to the house is from a rain-fed tank holding 12,000 litres. The landlords say they used their own separate tank water supply for the bus they lived in.
The tenants ran out of water faster than the landlords thought they should. 17 The tenants bought one tank delivery from a commercial water supplier 18 but said that they could not afford to do this more than once.
The landlords had access to bore water, but this was some distance away in another area of the farm and used a petrol generator and bore pump. The tenants said they could not afford to contribute to the petrol. 17 On one occasion, the tenants’ son accidentally left a tap on which drained the tank and left them without water for about 24 hours (on 18 October 2023). This was not the landlords’ fault. 18 With assistance from WINZ.
The landlords became frustrated and turned off the power to the water pump on at least two occasions. They agreed in the hearing that this was the wrong thing to do.
It is the landlords’ responsibility to provide an “adequate means” for the collection and storage of water when there is no reticulated or public water supply; s45(1)(ca) RTA. There was no evidence to allow me to assess why the tenants were running out of water, so I make no finding on whether there was an adequate supply or not.
What is clear is that water is essential. The law specifically protects access to gas, electricity, water and other services and a landlord must not interfere with the supply of these unless necessary to avoid danger or for maintenance or repairs; s45(2) RTA. To do so is an unlawful act and exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 45(2A) RTA.
The landlords admit that they twice intentionally turned off the water pump. Their intent was to stop the tenants using so much water and because they were frustrated. The evidence was not clear as to how long the pump was off for. The tenants need to know that if a reasonable supply of tank water runs out then the landlord does not have to provide more. The landlords need to know that they must not limit the supply of any essential service except for safety or to do repairs. I award exemplary damages of $600.00. Power
The tenants have applied for compensation for power costs.
A series of texts from the landlords show that the original agreement had been that power was included within the rent of $750.00 per week. 19
The landlords were using electricity from the tenants’ supply. The electricity account was in the name of the tenants. Section 39 of the RTA makes it clear that a tenant is only responsible to pay for outgoings related to their own use. The landlords had a freezer, washing machine, lights, the water pump and possibly other appliances running.
I also find that the tenants should be paid compensation for power because of the cold and draughty house which probably increased their use of electricity for heating.
From the evidence available, the landlords have paid $373.01 20 towards electricity during the tenancy.
I calculate additional compensation to be paid by the landlords, as:- 19 See documents on USB drive from tenants, under “power”. 20 Direct debit on 21 August 2023. a. The power invoices due during the first three months of the tenancy because the agreement was that the rent of $750.00 per week included power 21 , and b. a contribution of $100.00 per month for the last three power invoices because the landlords were using power from the tenants’ account and to allow for the cold and draughty house.
The compensation to be paid totals $1,209.39 22 which is calculated by:- a. the invoice due 21 July 2023 of $379.93, plus b. the invoice due 21 August 2023 of $481.07, plus c. the invoice due 18 September 2023 of $421.40, plus d. a total of $300.00 for the invoices due in October, November, and December 2023, and minus e. $373.01 already paid by the landlords.

Have the landlords breached the bond laws?

The tenancy agreement records a bond of $3,000.00 for this tenancy and both parties agreed at the first hearing that this was the correct amount.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. 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 and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants have proved that they paid $3,000.00 in bond money. The initial $1,400.00 was for the bond for the previous tenancy premises with the same landlords. This amount is at the Bond Centre.
The additional $1,600.00 was paid at the start of this tenancy. This amount has not been lodged at the Bond Centre and the landlords have kept it.
I made an order on 24 January 2024 requiring the landlords to lodge this amount. As of the date of this order, the Bond Centre has no record of them having done so.
I therefore find that the landlords have breached section 19 and committed an unlawful act.
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 21 See footnote 12. 22 $379.93+$481.07+$421.40+$300.00 = $1,582.40 - $373.01 = $1,209.39 party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlords have intentionally failed to lodge the bond. I consider the factors in s109 below:- a. The landlords’ intent can only be to keep the $1,600.00 of bond money for themselves without their entitlement being assessed by the Tribunal. b. The effect of the landlords’ breach is that the tenants do not have access to their money. c. The interests of the tenants are that bond money should be held securely by the independent Bond Centre and available to the landlords only with their consent or by order of the Tribunal. d. There is a public interest in landlords always lodging bond money and complying with Tribunal work orders that they must do so.
This is a serious breach especially as the landlords have disregarded a Tribunal order to lodge the additional $1,600.00. I award exemplary damages of $1,400.00. Conclusion
The tenants say that they have incurred substantial debt because of this tenancy. They have borrowed money to buy water and to meet daily living expenses. They have had to move away from services and schools needed by their children. I hope that the landlords may take this order as an opportunity to put some of that right. Filing fee and suppression of names
The tenants have been substantially successful, so I award the filing fee and suppress their names from the published order.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4713298 — net $6,794.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears less bond retained by the landlords	$2,035.21		Rent arrears less bond retained by the landlords
Compensation: maintenance and healthy homes		$2,000.00	maintenance and healthy homes
Exemplary damages: failing to insulate and draughts		$3,600.00	failing to insulate and draughts
Exemplary damages: turning off water		$600.00	turning off water
Exemplary damages: failing to lodge the bond		$1,400.00	failing to lodge the bond
Compensation: power costs		$1,209.39	power costs
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$2,035.21	$8,829.83
Net award		$6,794.62
Bond		$1,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$6,794.62

Claims and awards for application 4713298 — net $6,794.62 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears less bond retained by the landlords

Amount: $2,035.21
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears less bond retained by the landlords

Compensation: maintenance and healthy homes

Amount: $2,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: maintenance and healthy homes

Exemplary damages: failing to insulate and draughts

Amount: $3,600.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: failing to insulate and draughts

Exemplary damages: turning off water

Amount: $600.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: turning off water

Exemplary damages: failing to lodge the bond

Amount: $1,400.00
Awarded to: Tenant

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee Rent arrears

Order

Hannah Burndred and Regan Burndred must pay [The tenant/s] $6,794.62 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

All parties attended the first hearing on 12 December 2023. Only the tenants attended the second hearing, held by telephone on 5 March 2024.
Both the landlords and tenants have made applications to the Tribunal.
The tenancy had ended by the date of the first hearing.
The landlords claim payment of rent owing. The tenants claim compensation and exemplary damages for alleged breaches of maintenance and Healthy Homes Standards, interference with water services, and power costs. The tenants also claim that a 90-day termination notice given to them by the landlords was retaliatory.
A bond of $1,600.00 has been paid by the tenants for this tenancy and was intended to be added to a transfer of a further $1,400.00 from the bond for a previous tenancy at a different address. Background
The tenants previously rented a property owned by the landlords in another town. The landlords wanted to sell that property and the tenants wanted to move out of the area.
The landlords offered to rent the tenants the house in which they had been living and themselves moved into a house-bus on the same one-acre property.
The parties signed a tenancy agreement for these premises with a start date of 3 June 2023 at a weekly rent of $750.00 and the total bond of $3,000.00.
The tenants soon found it difficult to pay the rent and disagreement arose about the tenants’ water use. This is a rural property and water for the tenancy premises mainly comes from a rainwater tank. Further dispute arose about the condition of the house.
The landlords say that they were in the process of renovating the tenancy premises and that the tenants were aware of this when they agreed to rent it. The tenants say that they did not realise how much work still needed to be done and what it would be like living there.
The tenants emailed the landlords on 1 September 2023 and raised concerns about the house and the tenancy. Later that same day, the landlords gave them 90-days’ written notice to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that the premises were to be substantially renovated.
The tenants moved out by the end date specified in the notice which was 29 November 2023.
The fact that the tenancy had ended by the date of the first hearing meant that I did not need to decide whether to set aside the notice of termination on the grounds that it was retaliatory. However, the issue is still relevant and important, so I do consider it in this decision. Issues
The issues to be decided are:- a. Do the tenants owe rent? b. Was the landlords’ 90-day notice of termination retaliatory? c. Did the landlords’ breach their maintenance, insulation and/or Healthy

Homes Standards obligations?

Compensation may be awarded to a non-breaching party to recover expenses or loss, or as a lump sum or reduction of rent where the tenancy agreement or the law has been breached. The Tribunal can recognise non-financial loss such as inconvenience and stress, where appropriate.
Exemplary damages are like a fine or a penalty and can only be awarded for an intentional breach of specified “unlawful acts” (which are listed in Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The Tribunal must decide whether it is just to award these after considering the breaching party’s intent, the effect of the act, the interests of the innocent party, and the public interest; see s109(3) RTA.

Do the tenants owe rent?

The landlords supplied a rent ledger at the first hearing. I gave both parties the chance to check bank statements and provide me with any evidence.
The tenants have supplied their bank statements. These show that the landlords’ rent ledger misses one payment of $150.00 made by AL on 15 August 2023.
The evidence includes a text sent from the landlords to the tenants on 5 September 2023 in which the landlords agree to reduce the rent to $400.00 per week “for the remainder of your tenancy” and also say “we will forget about the missed payments”. The landlords’ rent ledger claims rent at the rate of $400.00 per week from 2 September 2023 until the end of the tenancy.
Both parties agree that the landlords’ refunded $400.00 paid by the tenants on 8 November 2023 so that payment does not appear in the ledger.
I have replicated the rent ledger below (from week 10) with the correct figures. WeeksRent due date Rent period from Rent period to Rent amount due Rent amount paid Rent paid date Arrears 108/8/235/8/2311/8/23750.00600.008/8/23900.00 1115/8/2312/8/2318/8/23750.00750.0015/8/23900.00 1222/8/2319/8/2325/8/23750.00--1,650.00 1329/8/2326/8/231/9/23750.00400.0031/8/232,000.00 145/9/232/9/238/9/23400.00400.005/9/232,000.00 1512/9/239/9/2315/9/23400.00400.0012/9/232,000.00 1619/9/2316/9/2322/9/23400.00400.0019/9/232,000.00 1726/9/2323/9/2329/9/23400.00300.0026/9/232,100.00 183/10/2330/9/236/10/23400.00400.003/10/232,100.00 1910/10/237/10/2313/10/23400.00-2,500.00 2017/10/2314/10/2320/10/23400.00300.0017/10/232,600.00 2124/10/2321/10/2327/10/23400.00-3,000.00 2231/10/2328/10/233/11/23400.00900.0031/10/232,500.00 237/11/234/11/2310/11/23400.00350.007/11/232,550.00 2414/11/2311/11/2317/11/23400.00-2,950.00 2521/11/2318/11/2324/11/23400.00-3,350.00 2628/11/2325/11/2329/11/23285.71-3,635.71
My decisions are:- a. That the tenancy ended on 29 November 2023. This was the date given in the landlords’ termination notice and the date the tenants emailed to say that the house was empty and clean. b. The landlords’ offered not to seek payment of the missed rent owing as at 2 September 2023. The amount owing at this point was $2,000.00. c. I have not deducted this amount from the rent arrears owing. Instead, I have considered whether the tenants should be awarded compensation for breach of maintenance, insulation and Healthy Homes Standards obligations (see later in this decision). I consider that this is a fair way to address the offer made by the landlords to “forget” 1 about the rent arrears relating to the weeks of the tenancy when rent was being charged at $750.00 per week. d. The amount owing by the tenants for rent up to the end date of the tenancy is $3,635.71. 2
I have deducted the $1,600.00 in bond money kept by the landlords from the amount of rent owing by the tenants. This leaves rent owing of $2,035.21 which is the amount I have awarded in this order. Was the landlords’ 90-day notice of termination retaliatory?
The tenants say that the notice the landlords gave them on 1 September 2023 to terminate the tenancy was a retaliatory response to two emails the tenants had sent to the landlords that same day in which they communicated concerns about the tenancy.
The tenants’ emails explained that they could not get any more financial help from WINZ 3 because that agency and a social worker, from another agency also assisting the family, were asking questions about the tenancy.
The concerns raised included the problems with running out of tank water and asking why the rent was so high when the house had unfinished walls, floors, and ceilings. The emails said that WINZ was asking why the healthy homes compliance statements in the tenancy agreement stated that the house was fully compliant when it clearly was not.
The response from the landlords (later that same day) was to give the tenants the notice to terminate the tenancy, saying that if they wanted the house up to standard then it would need to be fully renovated and they could not remain living there while that happened. 4
The law says that a landlord has a legal right to terminate a tenancy after giving at least 90 days’ notice if extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out or started within 90 days of the termination date and it would not be reasonably practicable for tenants to remain living there while the work is done; see s51(2)(f) RTA. 1 See paragraph 19 above and the text from the landlords to the tenants on 5 September 2023. 2 Rent ledge shows arrears of $3,635.71. A deduction of the $2,000.00 that the landlords’ said to “forget about” in their text dated 5 September 2023 gives a total owing of $1,635.71. 3 Work and Income New Zealand which is the common name for the Ministry of Social Development agency that manages state benefits and assistance on behalf of the government. 4 Email from HB to AL on 1 September 2023 at 3:10:30pm.
However, if the tenant proves that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord, then the Tribunal must declare that the termination notice is of no effect because it is retaliatory. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The penalty is high because the law recognises that tenants must be free to exercise their legal rights or make legitimate complaints without a landlord taking steps to terminate their tenancy.
My decision is that the notice of termination was retaliatory. The landlords issued the notice on the same day that the tenants had emailed them their complaints.
However, it is also true that the premises need substantial renovation, so the reason given for the termination of the tenancy is genuine.
In my view, the core issue is that the landlords chose to rent out a house that was clearly not up to the legal standard for tenancy premises. For this reason, I have decided to address compensation and exemplary damages as part of the claims for breach of maintenance and Healthy Homes Standards rather than under the claim for retaliatory notice. The law on landlord maintenance and Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) obligations
A landlord has legal obligations to:- a. provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair (s45(1)(b) RTA), b. provide compliant smoke alarms (s45(1)(ba) RTA), c. comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (including insulation requirements) within 120 days of any tenancy start date after 27 August 2022 5 (s45(1)(bb) RTA), d. comply with all laws relating to buildings, health and safety (s45(1)(c) RTA) including that every living room in every dwelling is required to have a fireplace and chimney or other approved form of heating, 6 e. provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply (s45(1)(ca) RTA). 5 Clause 2 of Schedule 1, Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (RT(HHS) Regs). 6 Regulation 6, Housing Improvement Regulations 1947.
All of the above obligations apply even if a tenant knows the state of the premises at the time that the tenancy is entered into; see s45(3) RTA.
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 HHS compliance date for this tenancy was 30 September 2023. 7
The HHS require that these premises have:- a. compliant ceiling (R2.9 or 120mm) and underfloor (R1.3) insulation 8 , b. the main living room contains a qualifying heater 9 capable of maintaining a temperature in that room of 18°C 10 , c. bathrooms and kitchens have extractor fans and other rooms have windows or doors opening to the outside 11 , d. premises must be free from unintentional gaps between, and holes in, building elements which allow unreasonable draughts 12 , e. premises have an efficient drainage system for ground and roof water 13 and an underfloor moisture barrier (if there is an enclosed subfloor) 14 .
Insulation in the ceiling and underfloor has been required to a minimum standard since 1 July 2019. 15 Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 and underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
There is an exemption to having to comply with the HHS when a landlord has applied for consent to demolish or substantially rebuild premises with the work to begin within 12 months of the start of the tenancy. 16 The landlords did not raise this and there is no evidence the exemption applies. 7 120 days after the tenancy start date of 3 June 2023. 8 Regulations 14 to 18, RT(HHS) Regs. The “R” value is the resistance to heat loss. 9 Regulation 9 RT(HHS) Regs. A fixed heater of at least 1.5 kW, with thermostat (if an electric heater or heat pump). Unacceptable heaters are an open fire, an unflued combustion heater, or an electric heater if the required heating capacity is greater than 2.4 kW. 10 Calculated in accordance with Schedule 2 RT(HHS) Regs or the Tenancy Services online ‘Heating Assessment Tool’ which requires input of the measurements of the living area’s walls and windows. 11 Regulations 21-24 RT(HHS) Regs. Kitchen extractor fan ducting must be a minimum of 150mm or an exhaust capacity of 50 litres per second, bathroom of 120mm or 25 litres per second. 12 Regulations 25 and 26 RT(HHS) Regs. 13 Regulation 27 RT(HHS) Regs. 14 Regulation 28 RT(HHS) Regs. 15 Regulations 12 to 16, Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. 16 Regulation 31, RT(HHS) Regs

Did the landlords breach the maintenance, insulation and Healthy Homes Standards?

The core issue in this case is that the house at this address was in the process of still being renovated by the landlords and was not in a suitable condition to be rented out.
The tenants supplied photographs and have proved that:- a. There was no underfloor insulation. b. The internal walls, ceilings, and floor were unfinished. Photographs show:- i. gaps and holes (some appear to be drill holes) in the floorboards through to the outside, ii. missing ceiling panels in at least one room which left the room open to the roof space and ceiling insulation exposed, iii. a large gap (estimated to be 3-6cm wide) in the ceiling along the length of the wall in which a fireplace and chimney are situated also leaving the room open to the roof space and ceiling insulation exposed, iv. a section of at least one wall and the interior of a wardrobe with no gib-board attached (leaving open framing into the wall cavity), v. no skirting boards along the bottoms or tops of several internal walls throughout the house which left gaps into the roof and wall cavities, vi. a large hole in one bedroom wall taped up with duct-tape, vii. carpet that did not reach the edges of the floors so left the gaps in the floorboards and at the bottom of walls exposed.
The landlords openly acknowledge the unfinished condition of the house and accuracy of the tenants’ photos. They agree that there is no underfloor insulation, no ventilation fan in the bathroom and that there are draughts because of the unfinished interior.
They say that they topped up the ceiling insulation just prior to the tenants moving in and recently installed a ground moisture barrier underneath the house. There was no evidence to verify these two issues however neither did the tenants bring evidence to prove breaches of these requirements.
The exterior of the house is also unfinished. This was not a focus in the hearing however I note that the photos show that there are no steps up to at least two sets of exterior doors (leaving a drop to the ground) and incomplete baseboards leaving gaps from the outside to the underfloor cavity.
The evidence as to whether the heating in the living area complied is less clear. The tenants’ photos show an old wood burner fireplace in the lounge which they said they used (the landlords provided firewood). There are gaps around the firebox (a faceplate appears to be missing) and large gaps into the original brick fireplace and chimney. I don’t know if the chimney is open to the roof or if a flue has been installed and sealed. Both parties agree that the landlords purchased a new wood burner during the tenancy but that it was not installed.
The landlords say they provided a “Sunshine blade” electric heater for the lounge and that they have been told that this complies with the HHS. They did not have evidence to show the kilowatt capacity of the heater or to verify the calculation they say they made of the heating capacity required for the living area.
My decision is that the old wood burner was probably sufficient to comply with the heating requirements before the HHS compliance date. However, the landlords have not proved that the heating complied with the higher HHS standard after 30 September 2023.
The breaches that have been proven or admitted are:- a. A breach of the insulation requirements because there was no underfloor insulation, and this has been required since 1 July 2019; b. Failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair because of the unfinished walls and ceiling inside, and the holes in the floor and walls, all of which caused unreasonable draughts, c. A breach of the HHS heating, draught stopping, and ventilation standards after 30 September 2023 (the compliance date for the HHS for this tenancy).
The law states that these breaches are unlawful acts for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenants have applied for compensation and exemplary damages. Compensation is intended to recognise loss and the Tribunal can quantify this in a variety of ways including as reimbursement of expenses, a reduction of rent, or a lump sum. Exemplary damages are punitive.
I award compensation of $2,000.00 to recognise that the tenants suffered detriment and stress from living in this cold and unfinished house. This amount is equal to the amount of rent arrears that the landlords offered to forgo.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may also 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 breaches were clearly intentional. These are experienced landlords, and they knew that the premises were unfinished. They also falsely completed the Healthy Homes compliance statements in the tenancy agreement stating that there was underfloor insulation when there was not, that the heating complied when there is no evidence that they had measured this, and that there were no unreasonable draughts when the walls, ceilings and floors had large gaps in them.
I now consider the factors in s109 RTA:- a. The landlords say that their intent was to help the tenants with accommodation. However, they charged a very high rent to tenants receiving government benefits and in exchange for sub-standard housing. To make matters worse, the tenancy started in mid-winter and the landlords failed to prioritise finishing the internal renovations and complying with the Healthy Homes Standards by the compliance date of 30 September 2023. I find their likely intent was to profit with little regard for the tenants. b. The effect of the unfinished premises was that the tenants (who had young children) lived in a cold house and could not afford to meet their other basic living costs of food, power, and clothing because the high rent used most of their benefit income. c. The interests of the tenants are that they are not taken advantage of because they find it difficult to find housing. They are entitled to safe, warm, fairly- priced housing. d. There is a public interest. It is difficult when there is a shortage of rental housing. Tenants are desperate for a house and landlords may say that they cannot afford to upgrade the house to comply with the legal standards. The simple fact is that if rent is being charged, in this case a very high amount, then the house must be compliant.
Taking all the factors into account, I do consider it just to award exemplary damages of $3,600.00, which is 50% of the maximum and is for all breaches. Water supply
The premises are in a rural location and the water supply to the house is from a rain-fed tank holding 12,000 litres. The landlords say they used their own separate tank water supply for the bus they lived in.
The tenants ran out of water faster than the landlords thought they should. 17 The tenants bought one tank delivery from a commercial water supplier 18 but said that they could not afford to do this more than once.
The landlords had access to bore water, but this was some distance away in another area of the farm and used a petrol generator and bore pump. The tenants said they could not afford to contribute to the petrol. 17 On one occasion, the tenants’ son accidentally left a tap on which drained the tank and left them without water for about 24 hours (on 18 October 2023). This was not the landlords’ fault. 18 With assistance from WINZ.
The landlords became frustrated and turned off the power to the water pump on at least two occasions. They agreed in the hearing that this was the wrong thing to do.
It is the landlords’ responsibility to provide an “adequate means” for the collection and storage of water when there is no reticulated or public water supply; s45(1)(ca) RTA. There was no evidence to allow me to assess why the tenants were running out of water, so I make no finding on whether there was an adequate supply or not.
What is clear is that water is essential. The law specifically protects access to gas, electricity, water and other services and a landlord must not interfere with the supply of these unless necessary to avoid danger or for maintenance or repairs; s45(2) RTA. To do so is an unlawful act and exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 45(2A) RTA.
The landlords admit that they twice intentionally turned off the water pump. Their intent was to stop the tenants using so much water and because they were frustrated. The evidence was not clear as to how long the pump was off for. The tenants need to know that if a reasonable supply of tank water runs out then the landlord does not have to provide more. The landlords need to know that they must not limit the supply of any essential service except for safety or to do repairs. I award exemplary damages of $600.00. Power
The tenants have applied for compensation for power costs.
A series of texts from the landlords show that the original agreement had been that power was included within the rent of $750.00 per week. 19
The landlords were using electricity from the tenants’ supply. The electricity account was in the name of the tenants. Section 39 of the RTA makes it clear that a tenant is only responsible to pay for outgoings related to their own use. The landlords had a freezer, washing machine, lights, the water pump and possibly other appliances running.
I also find that the tenants should be paid compensation for power because of the cold and draughty house which probably increased their use of electricity for heating.
From the evidence available, the landlords have paid $373.01 20 towards electricity during the tenancy.
I calculate additional compensation to be paid by the landlords, as:- 19 See documents on USB drive from tenants, under “power”. 20 Direct debit on 21 August 2023. a. The power invoices due during the first three months of the tenancy because the agreement was that the rent of $750.00 per week included power 21 , and b. a contribution of $100.00 per month for the last three power invoices because the landlords were using power from the tenants’ account and to allow for the cold and draughty house.
The compensation to be paid totals $1,209.39 22 which is calculated by:- a. the invoice due 21 July 2023 of $379.93, plus b. the invoice due 21 August 2023 of $481.07, plus c. the invoice due 18 September 2023 of $421.40, plus d. a total of $300.00 for the invoices due in October, November, and December 2023, and minus e. $373.01 already paid by the landlords.

Have the landlords breached the bond laws?

The tenancy agreement records a bond of $3,000.00 for this tenancy and both parties agreed at the first hearing that this was the correct amount.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. 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 and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants have proved that they paid $3,000.00 in bond money. The initial $1,400.00 was for the bond for the previous tenancy premises with the same landlords. This amount is at the Bond Centre.
The additional $1,600.00 was paid at the start of this tenancy. This amount has not been lodged at the Bond Centre and the landlords have kept it.
I made an order on 24 January 2024 requiring the landlords to lodge this amount. As of the date of this order, the Bond Centre has no record of them having done so.
I therefore find that the landlords have breached section 19 and committed an unlawful act.
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 21 See footnote 12. 22 $379.93+$481.07+$421.40+$300.00 = $1,582.40 - $373.01 = $1,209.39 party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlords have intentionally failed to lodge the bond. I consider the factors in s109 below:- a. The landlords’ intent can only be to keep the $1,600.00 of bond money for themselves without their entitlement being assessed by the Tribunal. b. The effect of the landlords’ breach is that the tenants do not have access to their money. c. The interests of the tenants are that bond money should be held securely by the independent Bond Centre and available to the landlords only with their consent or by order of the Tribunal. d. There is a public interest in landlords always lodging bond money and complying with Tribunal work orders that they must do so.
This is a serious breach especially as the landlords have disregarded a Tribunal order to lodge the additional $1,600.00. I award exemplary damages of $1,400.00. Conclusion
The tenants say that they have incurred substantial debt because of this tenancy. They have borrowed money to buy water and to meet daily living expenses. They have had to move away from services and schools needed by their children. I hope that the landlords may take this order as an opportunity to put some of that right. Filing fee and suppression of names
The tenants have been substantially successful, so I award the filing fee and suppress their names from the published order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4713298 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4713298 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Homes Standards obligations?

Do the tenants owe rent?

Did the landlords breach the maintenance, insulation and Healthy Homes Standards?

Have the landlords breached the bond laws?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Homes Standards obligations?

Do the tenants owe rent?

Did the landlords breach the maintenance, insulation and Healthy Homes Standards?

Have the landlords breached the bond laws?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions