What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4781304 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4781304?

Compensation: Mice infestation (emot…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Mice infestation (rent…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Unlawful entry (emotio…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4781304?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4781304?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11743841-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4781304 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4781304?

Compensation: Mice infestation (emot…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Mice infestation (rent…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Unlawful entry (emotio…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4781304?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4781304?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11743841-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4781304 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4781304 — net $250.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: tampering smoke alarms	$1,500.00		tampering smoke alarms
Compensation: supplementary cleaning	$250.00		supplementary cleaning
Compensation: Mice infestation (emotional distress		$250.00	Mice infestation (emotional distress
Compensation: Mice infestation (rent reduction		$250.00	Mice infestation (rent reduction
Compensation: Unlawful entry (emotional distress		$250.00	Unlawful entry (emotional distress
Exemplary damages: Maintenance (mice infestation		$500.00	Maintenance (mice infestation
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Provide false or misleading healthy		$250.00	Provide false or misleading healthy
Total award	$1,750.00	$2,000.00
Net award		$250.00
Bond		$4,760.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$250.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4781304 — net $250.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: tampering smoke alarms	$1,500.00		tampering smoke alarms
Compensation: supplementary cleaning	$250.00		supplementary cleaning
Compensation: Mice infestation (emotional distress		$250.00	Mice infestation (emotional distress
Compensation: Mice infestation (rent reduction		$250.00	Mice infestation (rent reduction
Compensation: Unlawful entry (emotional distress		$250.00	Unlawful entry (emotional distress
Exemplary damages: Maintenance (mice infestation		$500.00	Maintenance (mice infestation
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$500.00	Failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Provide false or misleading healthy		$250.00	Provide false or misleading healthy
Total award	$1,750.00	$2,000.00
Net award		$250.00
Bond		$4,760.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$250.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of [The tenant/s] name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately.
Mai Zhou must pay [The tenant/s] $250.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Introduction

This matter concerns a residential tenancy dispute between Mr Zhou (the landlord) and [The tenant/s] which was heard on two separate dates: 20 September 2024 and 27 March 2025.
Mr Zhou appeared in person and represented himself throughout the proceedings.
[Tenant 2 – name suppressed] attended the hearing in person, and her counsel, [The tenant/s representative], represented her. [Tenant 1 – name suppressed], her husband and co-tenant, did not attend either hearing. In the first hearing on 20 September 2024, I suggested [Tenant 1 – name suppressed] attend the second hearing to give evidence. [Tenant 1 – name suppressed]’s evidence was important because his evidence either corroborated Mr Zhou’s evidence or contradicted Mr Zhou’s evidence.
After the second hearing commenced, [The tenant’s representative] indicated that [Tenant 1 – name suppressed] could make himself available by phone for limited participation. I did not consider it appropriate because Mr. Zhou was entitled to cross-examine him after his evidence. It was also important for me to assess [Tenant 1 – name suppressed]’s credibility and the reliability of his evidence. I could not do this if [Tenant 1 – name suppressed] provided his evidence via phone. The hearing proceeded without [Tenant 1 – name suppressed]’s evidence.
[The tenant/s] were recent migrants as of July 2022. [The tenant’s representative], on behalf of the tenants, said that his clients “... had no knowledge of tenancy requirements or tenancy law. They entered into this tenancy essentially in good faith and trusted that the landlord had complied with all the relevant tenancy regulations and rules.” Mr. Zhou was the tenants’ first landlord.
The matter arises from a tenancy that commenced on 14 July 2022. Since then, the relationship between the parties has deteriorated, prompting both sides to file applications seeking compensation and various remedies.
Mr Zhou, the landlord, filed the initial application alleging multiple breaches of the tenancy agreement and obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). In response, [Tenant 2 – name suppressed], on behalf of herself and [Tenant 1 – name suppressed], filed a cross-application, also seeking compensation for breaches alleged to have been committed by the landlord.
Despite my encouragement at the outset, the tenants declined to participate in mediation. [The tenant’s representative], acting on instructions, indicated that the tenants did not believe mediation would be fruitful due to the depth of animosity between the parties and the perception that Mr Zhou’s claims were without merit.
This is not the first case I have heard of involving new migrants renting a property after arriving in the country, and before they purchased their property. The common theme in these disputes is that both parties ended up before the Tribunal because the conflict had escalated unnecessarily, likely due to poor communication, mutual mistrust, and a breakdown in what could have been a manageable landlord-tenant relationship.
By the time the matter was heard, both parties appeared emotionally invested. Their grievances went beyond typical tenancy disputes, making it harder to reach a resolution without formal adjudication.
Mr. Zhou and [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] have invested time, money, and emotional energy, and faced stress; yet, as my decision will show, no one emerges as a winner in these disputes. Standard of proof
The applicant must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities; i.e., more probable than not.
In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”.
This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: [102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.
Section 97(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: ... the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law.
It follows that, although the Tribunal is not bound by the usual rules of evidence when admitting evidence, where the allegation is serious, it is likely to require stronger evidence before finding the claim proved on the balance of probabilities. Timeline of Events
Below is a timeline. I strive to present it in a way that allows the reader to visualise how disputes progressed to a hearing before me. The timeline serves as a guide, not an absolute resource, as I had to digest a considerable amount of material.
2022 •July 2022: o [The tenant/s] commenced their tenancy at the property. o They are recent migrants and this is their first tenancy in New Zealand. o [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] claims mice appeared shortly after moving in. o Mr Zhou says WeChat messages from July include suspicious inquiries from [Tenant 1 – name suppressed] about power tools, later used to imply smoking may have occurred. •18 July 2022: o Date of a WeChat message cited by Mr Zhou to infer indoor smoking by [Tenant 1 – name suppressed]. •30 July 2022: o Alleged unlawful entry by Mr Zhou into the property. •August–September 2022: o Tenants report mice sightings. o [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] states that informal communication with the landlord took place. o Mr Zhou allegedly advised them to purchase mousetraps themselves. •September 2022 onward: o The mouse issue escalates, culminating in the capture of multiple mice by mid-2023.
2023 •July 2023: o Photo evidence of a trapped mouse sent by [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] to Mr Zhou. o Mr Zhou replied with a bad-taste comment ("eat the mouse"). •19 November 2023, 4:30 pm: o Mr Zhou conducts an inspection with consent. o He alleges four smoke alarms were found with missing batteries. •Late November 2023: o Tenants issue a 14-day notice demanding Mr Zhou lodge the bond. o Mr Zhou subsequently lodges the bond. •17 December 2023: o Final inspection conducted. o Mr Zhou claims the property was left in poor condition and begins taking photos/videos. o Dispute arises over "urine bottles" in the house/bedroom, which [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] says were homemade organic fertiliser containers stored for gardening. •20 December 2023 – 8 January 2024: o Mr Zhou captures and submits video evidence of alleged property uncleanliness.
2024 •11 June 2024: o [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] submits her written statement containing 69 paragraphs, which Mr Zhou later alleges contain falsehoods. •20 September 2024: o First hearing date. o Focus on Mr Zhou’s claims, including: ▪Property damage (scratched walls) ▪Cleanliness ▪Smoking inside the house ▪Smoke alarm tampering ▪Garden and maintenance neglect ▪Harassment and threatening behaviour post-tenancy
2025 •27 March 2025: o Second hearing date. o Focus shifts to [Tenant 2 – name suppressed]’s cross-application: ▪Mice infestation and lack of maintenance ▪Healthy Homes breaches (heat pump, insulation, draughts) ▪Exemplary damages (bond issues, unlawful entry, misleading information) ▪High electricity bills ▪Mirror incident ▪Smoke alarm non-compliance The Landlord’s claims Damage to Property
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a virtual certainty.
In Tekoa Trust v Amanda Stewart [2016] NZDC 25578, the tenant’s dog caused damage by urinating on the carpet on multiple occasions. The Court noted that that the tenant had allowed the dog inside in breach of a specific term of the agreement. Although that breach did not itself cause the loss, the Court went on to say: However, after a dog had urinated on the carpet once or possibly twice, continuing to allow the dog to enter the property on numerous occasions, which would have been required to damage the carpet to the extent shown, was a deliberate intentional act by the tenant.
The Court approved the following definition of intentional damage: Conduct will be intentional when it is deliberate, and not accidental, and the [resulting damage] ...will be intentional if the defendant meant to cause it or (probably) knew that it was virtually certain to result.
A similar situation was considered by the High Court in Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. In that case, two dogs that were permitted to be on the premises extensively stained the carpets. The High Court held that, just because the landlord allowed dogs to be on the premises, did not mean he assumed all risk of damage. The landlord was entitled to rely on the tenants’ assurance that the dogs were house-trained. At most he had accepted there would be greater wear and tear at the property because of the dogs.
The Court found that by allowing the dogs to remain inside, where it was certain they would continue to “perform natural bodily functions”, the tenants had intentionally caused the ensuing damage to the carpet.
Mr Zhou alleges that the tenants intentionally or at least carelessly damaged the house's interior, specifically scratching walls. He seeks compensation for the cost of repair and repainting.
Evidence: a. Videos and photos submitted show marks and scratches on bedroom and hallway walls. b. Mr Zhou claims these did not exist before the tenancy and the damage was not fair wear and tear.
Response: a. [The tenant’s representative] argues that tenants are not required to return property in “as new” condition. b. He suggests some wear and tear is normal, especially in older homes. c. No pre-tenancy inspection report signed by both parties was available.
My view a. While some marks were visible, no formal pre-tenancy inspection report was submitted to confirm the condition at the outset. The scratches appear consistent with fair wear and tear in a multi-bedroom home. b. There is no evidence before me to support the contention that the tenants intentionally scratched walls. For instance, with intention to damage the walls or the paint. c. In my view, it is not reasonable to expect tenants to return the property in a perfect condition after living there for 17 months and 5 days (from 14 July 2022 to 18 December 2023) with three children. d. Accordingly, Mr Zhou’s claim under this heading is dismissed. Premises Not Left in Reasonably Clean and Tidy Condition
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, particularly inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
Contractual provisions that require a tenant to have the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy are generally unenforceable (s 11 RTA). Commercial carpet cleaning will only be required where this is necessary to return the carpet to a reasonably condition.
Mr. Zhou claimed that the tenants failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. He presented videos and photos documenting areas he believed were insufficiently cleaned, including cobwebs, fly spots, and insect droppings. Mr. Zhou emphasised that professional cleaners had been hired by the tenants but argued that additional cleaning, which he undertook personally, was required. He claimed $2,714 for the cleaning work, based on 59 hours of labour performed by him and his spouse, charged at $40 per hour.
Evidence: a. Photos were taken in various locations in the house on 17 December 2023 (the photo booklet noted the date “Final inspection 17 Nov 2023”). b. Videos were taken on 20 December 2023 and 8 January 2024. Locations include Bedroom 1, Bedroom 5, and Entrance Hallway. c. The photos and videos show insect faeces, cobwebs, dust, and remnants of tape on walls.
Response: a. [The tenant’s representative], on behalf of the tenants, argued that the videos presented by Mr. Zhou were taken after the tenancy ended and after the final inspection. b. He contended that the tenants were not responsible for any deterioration of the property that occurred after the handover. c. [Tenant 2 – name suppressed]also stated that the condition of the property when vacated was comparable to when she first moved in, noting that the property was not in a "brand new" state at the start of her tenancy. d. Furthermore, [The tenant’s representative] pointed out that the tenants had hired professional cleaners to clean the property before vacating.
My view: a. I acknowledge that the tenants made efforts to clean the property and hired professional cleaners, but there are areas where the cleaning could have been more thorough. b. Based on the evidence before me, including videos and photos, there are some legitimate concerns about the level of cleanliness, particularly regarding the insect droppings around light fixtures and cobwebs.
However, I do not find sufficient evidence to justify the full amount claimed by Mr. Zhou. A reasonable compromise will be made, considering that the cleaners may have missed some areas, but the tenants are not responsible for ongoing deterioration after they vacate the premises.
I consider $250 compensation—a modest amount reflecting some failure on the tenants’ part. Smoking Inside the House and Tampering with Smoke Alarms
I put these two claims under the same heading because they are interrelated.
Mr Zhou accuses the tenant, [Tenant 1 – name suppressed], of smoking indoors, in breach of the tenancy agreement. He points to circumstantial evidence, including a dated WeChat message, and alleges he found cigarette butts at the premises.
Mr Zhou pointed to a WeChat message dated 18 July 2022 in which [Tenant 1 – name suppressed] asked about purchasing power tools.
Evidence: a. Mr Zhou invited me to infer from this message that smoking had occurred inside the house. He further claimed he saw cigarette butts at the property. b. In his evidence, Mr Zhou also said that the tenants tampered with smoke alarms by removing batteries from four smoke alarms when he inspected the property on 19 November 2023. He further claimed this was done intentionally to conceal indoor smoking. c. He presented videos showing that the smoke alarms were intact but had no batteries.
Response:
[Tenant 2 – name suppressed] categorically denied that anyone smoked inside the house. She stated her husband has not smoked in 7–8 years and would not smoke around their three young children.
[The tenant’s representative] emphasised the lack of direct evidence—no cigarette butts, no smell complaints, no photos. He argued that the WeChat message about power tools was completely unrelated to smoking , and the landlord’s inference was speculative and baseless.
[Tenant 2 – name suppressed] stated that she replaced the batteries in the alarms. [The tenant’s representative] argued that even if the batteries were temporarily missing, that alone does not prove smoking occurred.
My view: a. Mr. Zhou did not submit tangible evidence to support his claim that [Tenant 1 – name suppressed] smoked inside the house during the tenancy. The absence of batteries in the smoke alarms could be due to various reasons. Any further conclusions on my part would be speculative. Accordingly, on the balance of probabilities, I cannot conclusively determine that [Tenant 1 – name suppressed] smoked inside the house during the tenancy. However, the circumstances surrounding this allegation remain highly suspicious. b. Regarding the allegation that the tenants intentionally tampered with the smoke alarms by removing batteries, [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] explained that she had replaced the batteries. However, no receipts or proof of battery purchase were provided. In contrast, Mr. Zhou submitted videos showing that the smoke alarms were intact but lacked batteries. Replacing the batteries should not have been difficult—if removing them was easy, installing new ones should have been equally straightforward.
Accordingly, I find the tenants breached s40(1)(ca) RTA and consequently s40(2)(ab) RTA where it states that the tenants shall not “cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire”. The definition of the term “means of escape from fire” (from the Building Act 2004) includes smoke alarms.
I will address the exemplary damage issue under this heading later in this decision. Failure to Maintain Garden and Healthy Living Conditions
Mr. Zhou contends that the tenants neglected the garden and allowed the property’s internal hygiene to deteriorate. He also raised concerns about materials left on the property and personal hygiene issues, including allegations that organic fertiliser (Mr Zhou alleges the contents in the bottles were urine) was stored in the bedrooms or the house.
Mr. Zhou alleged that the tenants failed to maintain the garden and lived in a manner that compromised healthy living standards. See section 40(1)(c) RTA. His submissions included the following claims:
Neglected Garden: a. He stated that the garden was not properly maintained, suggesting it was overgrown or untidy. b. However, he did not provide photographs or evidence demonstrating that the tenants’ failure to maintain the garden was consistent and persistent after a formal notice to remedy was issued. He did submit four photos in his "Inspection Report 19/11/23," where he claimed the tenants had not mowed the lawn and the grass was long.
"Urine Bottles" Allegation: a. Mr. Zhou presented photos of plastic bottles found inside the house and on the property, claiming they were urine bottles stored indoors—implying poor hygiene and unhealthy living conditions. b. He argued that this demonstrated the tenants were not maintaining a clean and safe household, particularly since children were present.
General Cleanliness Concerns: a. He referenced cobwebs, insect droppings, and general disarray inside the property as part of his broader argument that the tenants had failed to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy.
Response:
Fertiliser Bottles, Not Urine: a. [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] vehemently denied that the bottles contained urine. b. In her evidence, she stated she held a mixture of coffee and tea residue with water, which she used as organic fertiliser. c. She explained that the fertiliser was intended for gardening, an activity she undertook with the help of neighbours and friends. d. She stated that the bottles were normally kept outside and were only seen inside during a rushed inspection while she was distracted by her sick child.
My view: a. Assessing the evidence objectively and taking into account Mr. Zhou’s submissions, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenants failed to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy as required under s 40(1)(c) of the RTA for the following reasons: Garden maintenance i. Mr. Zhou produced no concrete evidence to support his claim regarding garden maintenance. A single snapshot does not sufficiently demonstrate that the tenants failed to fulfil their obligations under s 40(1)(c) of the RTA. ii. I acknowledge that [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] did not specifically address garden upkeep, but the burden of proof rested on Mr. Zhou to substantiate his claim on the balance of probabilities. Bottles contain “urine” iii. I struggle to understand how Mr. Zhou could confidently allege that the bottles contained urine. If his claim were based solely on their appearance and placement—without any analysis of their contents—then it would be entirely speculative. It appears to me that this was indeed the basis for his conclusion. iv. Speculating about the contents of the bottles does not constitute credible evidence. Therefore, I am not satisfied that Mr. Zhou has discharged his burden of proof on the balance of probabilities. b. Accordingly, the claims under this heading are dismissed. Other complaints
Mr Zhou also made various other complaints below: Failure to Report Maintenance Issues
He alleges the tenants failed to inform him of certain maintenance issues during the tenancy, preventing timely repairs and insurance claims. However, during the hearings, Mr Zhou did not specify which particular issues were not reported beyond referencing general neglect, including the mouse infestation and cleanliness. The claim is dismissed for failing to discharge the burden of proof. My reasons are: a. Lack of Specificity: Mr Zhou did not identify any specific maintenance issues—beyond vague references to the mouse infestation and cleanliness—that were allegedly not reported. b. [Tenant 2 – name suppressed]’s Evidence of Notification: [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] testified that the mouse problem began shortly after moving in (August–September 2022) and that it was verbally reported to Mr Zhou multiple times. This was not seriously disputed. c. Landlord’s Response to Mice: Mr Zhou’s own reaction—advising tenants to buy traps and joking that they could “eat the mouse”—suggests he was aware of the problem. Therefore, any claim that he was not notified lacks credibility. d. No Insurance Claims Provided: Mr Zhou did not present evidence that any insurance claim was denied due to lack of notification, nor did he specify what repairs were delayed. Post-Tenancy Harassment
Mr Zhou claims the tenants continued to contact and harass him after vacating the property. He alleges they showed up at his residence late at night and sent threatening emails. The claim is dismissed for failing to discharge the burden of proof. My reasons are: a. No Supporting Documentation: Mr. Zhou did not provide copies of the alleged emails, texts, or any evidence showing late and regular night visits to his residence that could be said to amount to harassment. b. No Witness Testimony: There were no independent witnesses or supporting statements corroborating the claim of harassment. c. No Evidence of Threats: There was no indication of police involvement or formal complaints that would suggest behaviour rising to the level of harassment. Loss of Rent
Mr. Zhou further alleges a loss of rental income due to delays in cleaning and the state in which the property was left. This claim is dismissed for failing to meet the burden of proof. My reasons are as follows: a. Renting a property constitutes operating a business. It is incorrect to assume that tenants must return the premises in pristine condition or to a standard that satisfies the landlord. The applicable legal standard— "reasonably clean and tidy"—is an objective test under section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA. It is not a subjective test. b. In my view, while the tenants’ commercial cleaner could have performed more thoroughly, any additional time or effort Mr. Zhou chose to expend in cleaning the property to meet his personal standards was his own decision and part of operating a business. Falsification of Evidence: At the second hearing
Mr. Zhou alleged that [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] submitted false information in her written statement—particularly in paragraphs 60 to 69— which, he argued, undermined the credibility of her claims. This claim is dismissed for failing to meet the burden of proof. My reasons are as follows: a. Discrepancies between [Tenant 2 – name suppressed]’s statements, based on her recollection and interpretation of what she understood from the conversation with Mr Zhou, and the recording transcript are common. Such differences alone do not prove deliberate falsification. b. While Mr. Zhou submitted a transcript of an audio recording that he claimed contradicted [Tenant 2 – name suppressed]’s statements, he failed to persuade me that [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] “lied” intentionally. c. Mr. Zhou’s disagreement with the content of [Tenant 2 – name suppressed]’s statement does not, in itself, demonstrate that she intentionally provided false evidence.
I will now turn to the tenants’ claims against the landlord, Mr Zhou. Claims of the Tenants ([The tenant/s]) Failure to Maintain Property (Mice Infestation)
[Tenant 2 – name suppressed], on behalf of herself and [Tenant 1 – name suppressed], claimed that a persistent and serious mouse infestation affected their tenancy shortly after they moved in. Despite informal and formal notifications, they claim the landlord failed to take adequate steps to address the issue, Mr Zhou failed to take reasonable steps to remedy it, breaching his obligations under s45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which requires landlords to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
[Tenant 2 – name suppressed] seeks reimbursement for 10% of the total rent. She initially included mousetrap expenses in her claim but later withdrew this claim, as she considered it a minor claim. Tenants’ Submissions and Evidence
Early Onset of Infestation: a. [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] stated the infestation began shortly after the tenancy commenced in July 2022, with sightings of mice by August or September 2022. b. She said the issue persisted throughout the tenancy and worsened over time.
Verbal Notifications to Landlord: a. In her evidence, [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] said that she (and [Tenant 1 – name suppressed]) verbally notified Mr Zhou about the mice on several occasions. b. Mr Zhou allegedly dismissed it as “normal” and suggested they buy traps themselves.
Electronic Traps and Escalation: a. [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] eventually purchased electronic mousetraps. b. At the height of the infestation, they were catching up to 10 mice per night.
Photo Evidence: a. Tenants submitted photos of trapped mice and holes in the property (especially near a bathroom drain) as entry points. b. These were included in the Tenant’s Bundle of Documents (“the bundle”) at pages 42–46.
Correspondence: a. In July 2023, [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] sent Mr Zhou a photo of a trapped mouse. b. Mr Zhou allegedly replied with a bad taste message via WeChat on 12 July 2023 at 4.31 pm: “When the time comes clean out its guts, clean everything, fry it up, and it will be so enjoyable to eat.”
Compensation Claim Sought: a. The tenants sought a 10% rent reimbursement across the tenancy for the distress and impact caused by the infestation. b. This was bundled with the breach of the Healthy Homes Standards claim. Landlord’s Submissions and Evidence
Denial of Formal Notification: a. Mr Zhou stated that he was not made aware of the mouse issue in any formal way (i.e., no written request for repairs or 14-day notice).
Minimisation of Severity: a. He suggested the tenants should have acted earlier or that the issue was not as serious as portrayed. b. He also argued during the hearing that the mouse infestation was the result of [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] failing to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy, which he claimed contributed to attracting pests. Mr Zhou stated: “Because if she’s clean, it wouldn’t attract that many mice.” c. He claimed to have provided advice about mousetraps but did not acknowledge any duty to arrange professional pest control. My view
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was a mouse infestation during the tenancy and that the landlord, Mr. Zhou, failed to take reasonable steps to address it promptly.
I do not accept Mr. Zhou’s submission that the mouse infestation resulted from the house being kept unclean. While [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] has three young children, and maintaining a reasonably clean and tidy home is her responsibility, I do not find that the property was kept below an acceptable standard, given the presence of small children. Before attributing blame to the tenants, Mr. Zhou should have first investigated the issue and taken necessary steps to address any potential entry points for mice.
[Tenant 2 – name suppressed] gave credible and consistent evidence that the infestation began in July 2023, supported by photographic evidence (bundle pages 42–46). However, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the mouse infestation persisted throughout the entire tenancy, as there was no evidence to support this claim.
I accept that the tenants raised the issue with Mr. Zhou on several occasions, albeit verbally. While no formal 14-day notice was issued, I find that some form of notification occurred. In particular, in her evidence, [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] said she sent Mr. Zhou a photograph of a trapped mouse in July 2023, to which he responded jokingly by suggesting they "eat the mouse." Mr. Zhou did not deny this message, and it was referenced during the hearing. I consider this response, though perhaps intended humorously, indicative of a dismissive attitude and a failure to treat the matter seriously.
I do not accept [Tenant 2 – name suppressed]’s evidence (given through the interpreter) that "There was a time when every night we caught more than 10 mice." While I accept that she purchased electronic traps at her own expense, there was no photographic evidence to substantiate this claim. If [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] took a photograph to show Mr. Zhou that she had caught a mouse on at least two occasions, it is implausible that she would not have taken additional photos if she had indeed caught more than 10 mice nightly.
There was no evidence that Mr. Zhou engaged professional pest control services, nor did he provide receipts, quotes, or correspondence demonstrating that he had investigated or remedied the issue.
While Mr. Zhou argued that the tenants failed to notify him formally and exaggerated the issue, his submissions lacked specificity and were unsupported by independent evidence. By contrast, [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] submitted photographic proof, provided a timeline of events using WeChat messages, and maintained a consistent narrative. I am satisfied that the landlord was aware of the issue and failed to act appropriately.
Under s45(1)(b) of the RTA, landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. This obligation is ongoing and does not always require formal notice—particularly where the issue is obvious or the landlord has actual knowledge. In my view, Mr. Zhou’s awareness of the infestation, combined with his failure to arrange professional remediation (or at least an investigation), constitutes a breach of his obligation.
Accordingly, I find Mr Zhou committed an unlawful act for not providing and maintaining the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching obligations under section 45 RTA 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.
I will address compensation and exemplary damage later in this judgment. Mirror incident
I do not accept the allegation that the mirror detached from the wall was due to Mr. Zhou’s failure to maintain the property. It was an unfortunate accident.
I acknowledge that [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] provided a detailed and emotional account of the incident, describing it as a serious safety hazard that nearly injured her and her children. However, this alone does not establish liability on the balance of probabilities.
Mr. Zhou submitted that: a. The mirror was already affixed to the wall when he purchased the property. b. He made no modifications to the mirror. c. He has no knowledge of how or why the mirror fell.
In my assessment, [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] bears the burden of proof that Mr. Zhou's action or lack thereof, contributed to the mirror's detachment. Even in well-maintained properties, mirrors may detach due to failure of adhesive materials, loosening of mounting hardware over time, or other reasons.
There is no evidence to support how the mirror detached from the wall beyond the fact that it detached and shattered. Additionally, there is no evidence submitted to demonstrate that Mr. Zhou failed in his maintenance obligations regarding this fixture.
Accordingly, the claim regarding the mirror detachment is dismissed. Healthy Homes Standards Breaches
[Tenant 2 – name suppressed] alleges Mr Zhou failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards: a. The house allegedly lacked a functioning heat pump in key living areas. b. There were significant draughts due to poor sealing. c. The insulation was inadequate or non-compliant. d. Claims were also raised about non-compliant smoke alarms.
[Tenant 2 – name suppressed] further alleges that her power bills were inflated due to non-compliance with Healthy Homes standards. She submitted bills indicating an average of $200–$250 per month. Tenants’ submissions and evidence Heating Deficiency
[The tenant’s representative], on behalf of [Tenant 2 – name suppressed], submitted that the rental property was non-compliant with the Healthy Homes heating standard from the outset of the tenancy. [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] gave evidence that the main living area lacked a fixed heating source, such as a heat pump, and that the family was forced to rely on portable electric heaters to warm the space. These devices were inefficient and led to substantial electricity bills. The tenants submitted power bills showing average charges of $200–$250 per month, which they attributed directly to the need to run multiple portable heaters for long periods due to the absence of an adequate heating system.
[The tenant’s representative] argued that this deficiency clearly breached the Healthy Homes heating standard, which requires that a landlord provide a fixed heating device capable of warming the main living room to at least 18°C. He pointed out that no evidence was presented by the landlord to prove such a device existed or was functional. Furthermore, the landlord’s reliance on an inherited compliance document was legally flawed. The heating standard, [The tenant’s representative] submitted, is a core obligation and not subject to informal interpretation or assumption. [Tenant 2 – name suppressed]’s evidence regarding her family’s discomfort and reliance on alternative heating was consistent and unrebutted. Poor Insulation
[Tenant 2 – name suppressed] gave evidence that the house was consistently cold during winter, which she attributed in part to inadequate insulation. [The tenant’s representative] noted that Mr Zhou had not submitted any evidence of ceiling or underfloor insulation, nor had he conducted or presented an updated assessment. The tenants were not provided with any documentation indicating that insulation met Healthy Homes standards. They described heat loss throughout the home, including through the ceiling and floorboards. [The tenant’s representative] submitted that the landlord’s failure to verify the state of the insulation after assuming ownership was a significant oversight and amounted to a breach of the duty under s45(1)(c) RTA. Draught-stopping deficiency
In relation to draught-stopping, the tenants reported noticeable airflow and cold draughts through poorly sealed windows and gaps around doors. [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] gave specific examples of how this affected the family’s ability to stay warm. [The tenant’s representative] submitted that the home failed to comply with the draught-stopping requirements of the Healthy Homes Standards, which obligate landlords to block unreasonable gaps and prevent excessive airflow. He argued that the persistent cold, even when portable heaters were running, supported the inference of a non-compliant building envelope. No evidence was offered by the landlord to rebut this claim or demonstrate remedial work. Failure to provide Healthy Homes Compliance Statement
[The tenant’s representative] highlighted that the tenancy agreement did not include a correct healthy homes compliance statement from the landlord, as required by s13A RTA. Instead, Mr Zhou provided a document prepared by the previous owner, which was not signed by him and was never properly integrated into the tenancy agreement. [The tenant’s representative] emphasised that landlord compliance cannot be delegated or inherited, and that a new landlord must make their own declaration based on a current assessment.
He submitted that this failure to provide a signed statement not only breached the Act but also misled the tenants into believing the property was compliant. Given that the tenants were recent migrants unfamiliar with New Zealand tenancy law, [The tenant’s representative] argued that they were particularly vulnerable to this kind of omission. Landlord’s submissions and evidence Heating Deficiency
Mr Zhou denied that the property was non-compliant with the Healthy Homes Heating Standard. In response to [Tenant 2 – name suppressed]’s claim that the main living room lacked a compliant fixed heating device, he relied on a document titled the “Previous Owner Healthy Homes Report.”
Mr Zhou stated that this document was completed before he became the landlord and was given to [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] in person on 17 July 2022, the day she came to his home to collect keys and move in. He asserted that the report confirmed the property was compliant with the Healthy Homes requirements at that time, including the standard for heating.
Mr Zhou acknowledged that the report had originally been created to assist [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] in opening a bank account, rather than for tenancy compliance purposes. Nevertheless, he argued that the report reflected accurate information about the property's condition and that it included sufficient detail to confirm the heating requirements were met. He maintained that, as the new landlord, he was entitled to rely on this report and did not need to prepare or sign a new compliance statement himself. Poor Insulation and Draught-stopping deficiency
With regard to insulation, Mr Zhou similarly relied on the “Previous Owner Healthy Homes Report” to suggest that the property met the minimum insulation requirements. He did not submit any new insulation records, compliance certificates, or evidence of recent assessments carried out during his ownership. He reiterated that the previous owner’s documents were handed to [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] and included all relevant details. However, he did not provide a copy of any specific ceiling or underfloor insulation records, nor did he address whether he had verified the insulation levels himself after becoming the landlord. No inspection logs or professional reports were presented to confirm that the insulation continued to meet legal requirements during the tenancy period. In essence, Mr Zhou’s argument relied entirely on inherited documentation and an implied belief that the property remained compliant without further verification.
In response to the allegation that the property had inadequate draught- stopping, Mr Zhou did not provide specific submissions. He did not deny the presence of gaps or draughts, nor did he submit evidence of weather-stripping, sealing, or repairs undertaken to mitigate airflow issues around windows or doors. The tenants claimed the home was cold and draughty, and their evidence included evidence about noticeable airflow during winter months. Mr Zhou did not produce a Healthy Homes inspection report showing compliance in this area, nor did he comment on any relevant features of the building’s structure to rebut the claim. As such, his position appeared to be a general denial of non-compliance, unsupported by affirmative evidence. The lack of direct engagement with this allegation left the claim effectively undefended. My view Heating Deficiency
[Tenant 2 – name suppressed] gave clear and consistent evidence that the main living area of the property did not contain a fixed heating device capable of meeting the Healthy Homes standard. She described relying on portable electric heaters throughout the tenancy, and submitted copies of electricity bills showing high monthly power usage—averaging approximately $200 in summer and $250 in winter. She attributed this directly to the absence of an adequate fixed heating source. [The tenant’s representative] submitted that the home failed the minimum standard for heating and that the tenants suffered both physical discomfort and financial burden as a result.
Mr Zhou, in response, did not submit any photographic or documentary evidence to show that a compliant heating system existed. He instead relied on a document referred to as the “Previous Owner Healthy Homes Report,” which he stated was handed to [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] when she collected the keys. He acknowledged that this document was prepared for banking purposes and was not signed by him as the current landlord.
Mr Zhou did refer to a heating calculation during the second hearing on 27 March 2025 in an attempt to show that the property met the Healthy Homes heating standard. But Mr Zhou did not link this calculation to a specific heater or prove that the room had a fixed heating device capable of reaching the required temperature.
Furthermore, in Mr Zhou’s evidence, he acknowledged that a heat pump was required to meet the healthy home standards heating requirement.
I therefore find that Mr Zhou breached the heating requirement under the Healthy Homes Standards. Poor Insulation and Draught-Stopping
In her evidence, [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] stated that the property was poorly insulated and prone to cold draughts, particularly in winter. She reported gaps and poor sealing around windows and doors, which significantly reduced warmth and comfort. The landlord did not provide any compliance certificates, insulation records, or evidence of recent inspections or assessments.
Mr. Zhou did not directly address these allegations during the hearing. Instead of refuting the tenants’ description of the property’s condition, he relied solely on the "Previous Owner Healthy Homes Report," which mentioned insulation.
Although Mr. Zhou did not provide correct information in his healthy homes compliance statement, I could not disregard the fact that the house had insulation. See photos submitted by Mr Zhou showing insulation in the appropriate location.
[The tenant’s representative] referred me to two photographs (pages 132 and 154 of the bundle), which showed gaps around the front door frames and a hole near a bookshelf in one room. [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] claimed these openings allowed cold air to enter, making the home draughty and difficult to heat.
However, I find it difficult to accept that these gaps alone would make the entire house cold and hard to heat without expert evidence. I am not satisfied that the tenants have met their burden of proof on the balance of probabilities.
Accordingly, the claim under this heading is dismissed. Provide Healthy Homes Compliance Statement with False or Misleading Information
[The tenant’s representative], counsel for the tenants, submitted that Mr Zhou provided false or misleading information in several respects regarding the tenancy agreement. Specifically, this concerned a Healthy Homes compliance statement, which the landlord is required to sign. The purpose of the statement is to inform the tenants of the current level of compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards under section 13A(1CA) of the RTA.
One of the central issues regarding the healthy homes compliance statement was that the landlord failed to provide a valid statement as required by sections 13A(1A) and (1C) of the RTA. While Mr Zhou later produced a signed document titled “Previous Owner Healthy Homes Report,” [The tenant’s representative] submitted that the document misled the tenants into believing that the property complied with all Healthy Homes Standards when, in fact, significant breaches existed. In his words “The landlord has relied on a document that is not his. That document does not meet the legal standard. It misled the tenants from the outset.”
Although Mr Zhou did sign a statement purporting to confirm healthy homes compliance, I accept [The tenant’s representative]’s submission that the document did not meet the statutory requirements, as the contents declared did not accurately reflect the correct status of the property’s compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards. Mr Zhou admitted during the hearing that he was uncertain about the content and purpose of the Healthy Homes compliance statement.
[The tenant’s representative] further submitted: “This is not just incomplete paperwork. This is a misrepresentation that goes to the heart of tenant protections.”
Additionally, [The tenant’s representative] objected to Mr. Zhou’s attempt to claim that [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] had provided false evidence in her written statement. He characterised this as a bad-faith attempt to discredit the tenants, arguing that there was no substantive contradiction between [Tenant 2 – name suppressed]’s oral evidence and her written statement and that Mr. Zhou’s use of an audio recording and transcript was, at best, a flawed interpretation on his part. He submitted: “The landlord has not only failed in his obligations—he has tried to deflect blame by falsely accusing the tenants of lying.” “There is nothing in the transcript that contradicts paragraphs 60 to 69 in the tenant’s statement.”
I find [The tenant’s representative]’s submissions compelling in this regard. I do not accept Mr. Zhou’s allegation that [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] gave false evidence, it is clear that Mr. Zhou’s conduct—his use of a prior landlord’s Healthy Homes compliance statement—undermined the tenants’ ability to understand their rights and obligations. For instance, the healthy homes compliance statement Mr Zhou prepared did not contain the required information for “ceiling insulation”, but the previous owner’s healthy homes compliance statement included the information. The Landlord’s submissions
In response to the allegation that he provided false or misleading information, Mr Zhou submitted that he acted in good faith throughout the tenancy and that any confusion or deficiencies in the statement provided were the result of a misunderstanding rather than deception. He denied that he had intentionally misled the tenants.
Mr Zhou maintained that he did provide a healthy homes compliance statement, which he described as the “Previous Owner Healthy Homes Report.” He said that he gave this document to [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] at the start of the tenancy on 17 July 2022, when she came to his residence to collect the keys. He explained that the statement had been prepared by the previous landlord and was used to help [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] open a bank account, but that it nevertheless contained accurate information regarding the state of the property.
Mr Zhou accepted that he did not create a new statement under his own name, but stated that he believed the existing report was sufficient. He did not dispute that it was not included in the tenancy agreement itself but submitted that this was due to his inexperience as a landlord, not an intent to mislead. He said: “I thought the document was valid. It had all the right information. I didn’t know it had to be signed again by me separately.”
Mr Zhou also denied that the tenancy agreement intentionally omitted important information. He stated that he used a standard template, and any gaps or missing details were accidental. He argued that both parties understood the essential terms, and he believed the arrangement was clear. As to the allegation that he mischaracterised [Tenant 2 – name suppressed]’s evidence or accused her falsely of lying, he explained that he was merely trying to point out inconsistencies between her written statement and what he believed occurred, particularly regarding the final inspection and the return of the keys. He did not intend to impugn her character but said he felt some of her claims were inaccurate or exaggerated.
In summary, Mr Zhou’s position was that he acted honestly, though possibly not always in strict compliance with legal requirements. He submitted that I should consider his status as a private landlord unfamiliar with the finer details of the law, and accept that any mistakes were unintentional and not made with a view to deceive or disadvantage the tenants. My view
While I accept that Mr Zhou may not have intended to mislead, his reliance on outdated or misapplied documentation and his lack of attention to legal obligations nonetheless contributed to misunderstanding and unfairness to his tenants. His explanation does not excuse the failure to meet his statutory responsibilities, nor the confusion caused to the tenants.
Accordingly, I find Mr. Zhou committed an unlawful act pursuant to section 13A(1F)(b) of the RTA because his healthy homes compliance statement includes information that he knows is false or misleading. Smoke alarms were not compliant with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016
[The tenant’s representative] submitted that some smoke alarms may not have been properly installed, potentially failing to meet the requirement of being within 3 meters of bedrooms. He further contended that non-photoelectric alarms were used, contrary to Clause 7(1)(d)(ii) of the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
In my assessment, [The tenant’s representative] did not provide sufficient technical evidence—such as photographs of model numbers or expert reports— to conclusively demonstrate that the alarms were non-compliant. The claim was unsupported by any substantive evidence.
No expert evidence, diagrams, or other documentation was submitted to verify the alleged improper placement of the alarms.
Accordingly, I find that [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] has not met the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities. The claim regarding smoke alarm non- compliance is therefore dismissed. Failure to lodge the bond
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In her evidence, [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] stated that the issue was discovered when she contacted Tenancy Services regarding an unrelated matter and learned that no bond had been lodged for their tenancy. Upon making this discovery, she served Mr. Zhou with a formal 14-day to remedy notice, requiring him to comply with his legal obligation. Mr. Zhou subsequently lodged the bond, but only after receiving this notice.
Mr. Zhou did not dispute this sequence of events. He acknowledged that the bond had been held for 16 months (1 year and 4 months) without being lodged. In his defense, Mr. Zhou explained that he had been waiting for the tenants to sign the bond lodgement form and that he was a first-time landlord.
I find that Mr. Zhou committed an unlawful act under the Residential Tenancies Act by failing to lodge the bond in a timely manner. Failure to provide rent receipts
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has not provided rent receipts within the required time.
A landlord must give or cause to be given to the person paying the rent a written receipt within 72 hours after payment or forthwith if payment is made in cash. See sections 29 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 29(5) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
[The tenant’s representative] did not address or submit evidence to support the claim regarding Mr. Zhou's alleged failure to provide rent receipts. His arguments focused solely on the landlord's failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.
In response to the allegation, Mr. Zhou stated: "I did provide her receipts. I gave her bank transfer records and receipts when she asked. I don't understand why she's saying I didn't."
[The tenant’s representative] submitted no evidence contradicting Mr. Zhou's assertion that rent was paid via bank transfer. Under Section 29(4) RTA, these transaction records constitute valid receipts.
Accordingly, I find [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] has failed to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. The claim regarding rent receipts is therefore dismissed. Unlawful entry on 30 July 2022
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice on 30 July 2022.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
During the hearing, Mr. Zhou did not dispute entering the premises on 30 July 2022. He acknowledged visiting to inspect a maintenance issue and check the property's condition, claiming [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] had verbally permitted his entry at the time. He also referenced WeChat messages exchanged with [Tenant 1 – name suppressed]. However, none of these messages specifically authorised his entry on an agreed date or time.
[Tenant 2 – name suppressed] strongly contested this account. In her evidence, she stated she had been caring for a sick child while managing her two other children. She stated Mr. Zhou entered a room unaccompanied and uninvited while she was breastfeeding—a moment she vividly recalled due to its intrusive nature. Through the interpreter, [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] recounted: “She was breastfeeding the baby when Mr Zhou came in. She felt very embarrassed because she was exposed, and she did not expect him to enter that room at that time.” “At that time, her baby was just born. She was breastfeeding the baby, and then the other child was on the couch and another child was sleeping. She was really tired, overwhelmed.” “When the landlord knocked on the door and came in, she didn’t know what he was doing or taking pictures of... She was trying to comfort the children. The landlord just went into one of the rooms. She didn’t know he was taking pictures or what he was doing.”
After evaluating the evidence, I find [Tenant 2 – name suppressed]’s evidence more credible and reliable for the following reasons: a. An unannounced entry during such a private moment would be highly distressing and memorable. [Tenant 2 – name suppressed]’s detailed recollection of the incident lends weight to her account. b. Mr. Zhou relied on WeChat messages to suggest consent, but these exchanges—dating back to 30 July 2022—were ambiguous and open to interpretation. This ambiguity undermines the reliability of his claim compared to [Tenant 2 – name suppressed]’s consistent evidence.
[Tenant 2 – name suppressed] maintained she never provided clear or informed consent for Mr. Zhou to enter the premises and was shocked to later discover he had taken photographs inside the house.
On the balance of probabilities, I conclude Mr. Zhou entered the premises without consent. Accordingly, I find he committed an unlawful act under the Residential Tenancies Act. Summary of my decision on the parties’ claims
The landlord’s claims: a. Damage to the property – dismissed. b. Premises not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition – dismissed c. Smoking inside the house – dismissed. d. Tampering with smoke alarms – proved. e. Failure to maintain garden – dismissed. f. Failure to maintain healthy living conditions (failure to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy) – dismissed. g. Failure to report maintenance issues – dismissed. h. Post-tenancy harassment – dismissed. i. Loss of rent – dismissed. j. Falsification of evidence – dismissed.
The tenants’ claims: a. Failure to maintain property (mice infestation) – proved. b. Failure to maintain property (mirror incident) – dismissed. c. Healthy homes standards breaches: i. Heating deficiency – proved. ii. Poor insulation and draught-stopping deficiency – dismissed. iii. Provide false or misleading healthy homes compliance statement – proved. d. Smoke alarms were not compliant with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 – dismissed. e. Failure to lodge the bond – proved. f. Failure to provide rent receipts – dismissed. g. Unlawful entry on 30 July 2022 – proved. Compensation and exemplary damages Compensation in favour of the tenants Failure to Maintain Property (Mice Infestation)
I did not accept [Tenant 2 – name suppressed]’s evidence (given through the interpreter) that "There was a time when every night we caught more than 10 mice."
The evidence before me shows there were mice in July 2023. It was not for the entire tenancy.
Accordingly, I find that a compensation of $250 for emotional distress in July 2023 is appropriate. Additionally, I award $250 as a reduction of the rent paid in July 2023. Healthy homes standards breach – heating deficiency
[Tenant 2 – name suppressed] provided her power bills as evidence of using more power to heat the house during winter.
I reviewed the power bills between pages 48 and 77 of the bundle. The relevant charge is categorised as “Variable charges”. The power bills were: a. 17 July to 28 July 2022 – $56.60 b. 29 July to 26 August 2022 – no invoice in the bundle. c. 27 August to 27 September 2022 – $145.95 d. 28 September to 27 October 2022 – $130.23 e. 29 October to 28 November 2022 – $119.64 f. 29 December 2022 to 27 January 2023 – $118.31 g. 28 January to 28 February 2023 – $116.81 h. 1 March to 28 March 2023 – $101.89 i. 29 March to 28 April 2023 – $122.35 j. 29 April to 26 May 2023 – $103.79 k. 27 May to 28 June 2023 – $149.06 l. 29 June to 28 July 2023 – $161.75 m. 29 July to 28 August 2023 – $170.46 n. 29 August to 28 September 2023 – $138.68 o. 29 September to 27 October 2023 – $114.52 p. 28 October to 28 November 2023 – $118.38
The winter months are highlighted in red. I acknowledge that the power bills increased during the winters of 2022 and 2023. However, I do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that the increase in power bills was caused by a heating deficiency. This is because the tenants are not claiming that the house was entirely without heat pumps throughout the tenancy—rather, their complaint concerns inadequate heating.
Based on the power bills provided, I am not satisfied that the tenants incurred additional power costs specifically to address inadequate heating during the winter months.
Accordingly, no compensation is awarded for heating deficiency. Unlawful entry on 30 July 2022
The unlawful entry took place during [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] was breastfeeding her child. [Tenant 2 – name suppressed]said it was embarrassing. It must have been uncomfortable.
I am satisfied Mr Zhou’s unlawful entry caused [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] emotional harm.
Accordingly, I award compensation of $250 in favour of [Tenant 2 – name suppressed]. Exemplary damages in favour of the tenants Breaching section 45 RTA (maintenance and healthy homes standards)
Breaching obligations under section 45 RTA 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.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The most concerning breach is mice infestation. Mr Zhou should not have let this complaint go unattended. As a prudent and reasonable landlord, he should have instructed a pest control expert to investigate and mitigate first. But he did not. Mr Zhou suggested to his tenants that they could consider buying mousetraps. But that was not an adequate response to the complaint.
The healthy homes standards breach is not on the serious end of the spectrum and I do not consider Mr Zhou intentionally breached his obligation in this regard.
Accordingly, I consider $500 exemplary damages for failing to address the mice infestation appropriate. Provide False or Misleading Healthy Homes Compliance Statement Breaching section 13A(1F)(b) of the RTA
Breaching obligations under section 13A(1F)(b) RTA by providing false or misleading statement is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $900.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Mr. Zhou explained that he relied on the previous owner’s healthy homes compliance statement and did not intend to avoid providing his own statement or providing correct information.
I accept Mr Zhou was a first-time landlord. Oversight was possible.
However, providing a healthy homes compliance statement with incorrect information was not an oversight. In my view, Mr. Zhou was aware that he did not possess the correct information, and he decided to provide false or misleading information to his tenants.
Accordingly, I consider $250 exemplary damage for providing a false or misleading healthy homes compliance statement appropriate. Failure to lodge the bond
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(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986
Mr. Zhou did not deny that he had the bond for 1 year and 4 months, or 16 months. The bond was $4,760. This is not an insignificant amount of money in Mr. Zhou’s hands.
Mr. Zhou explained that he was waiting for the tenants to sign the bond lodgement form and that he was a first-time landlord. I accept that he was a first-time landlord. But I do not accept that he could “keep” the bond for 16 months without once considering that he needed to do something with it.
Accordingly, I consider $500 exemplary damages for not lodging the bond with the Bond Centre appropriate. Unlawful entry on 30 July 2022
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986
In Mr Zhou’s evidence, he stated that he believed he had permission to enter the premises because: “I sent a WeChat message to [Tenant 1 – name suppressed] before going. He didn’t say no. He read the message. So I thought it was okay to go.”
Had it not been for this evidence, I would have ruled that Mr Zhou’s unlawful entry was intentional. However, based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that Mr Zhou entered the premises on 30 July 2022 without any belief or understanding that he had permission to do so.
Accordingly, I do not consider exemplary damages appropriate. Exemplary damages in favour of the landlord Tampering with smoke alarms
A breach of this obligation is declared to be an unlawful act, and exemplary damages of up to $4,000.00 can apply.
Section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that the Tenancy Tribunal may award exemplary damages if the Tribunal is satisfied that an unlawful act has been committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intention of the person who committed the act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act has been committed; and d. The public interest.
I rejected [Tenant 2 – name suppressed]’s explanation because the evidence showed that the smoke alarms had no batteries. Although I was not satisfied that [Tenant 1 – name suppressed] smoked inside the house, I concluded that [Tenant 2 – name suppressed] had intentionally removed the batteries.
This action endangered their lives—including those of their children—and put the landlord’s property at risk.
In my view, there is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords install compliant and functional smoke alarms in residential properties, and that tenants refrain from interfering with them and replace the batteries as needed. It is well established that smoke alarms are a simple, cost-effective, and highly efficient way to reduce the risk of fatalities and limit property damage in the event of a fire.
Having regard to these factors, I consider an award of exemplary damages in the amount of $1,500.00 appropriate. See Longterm Limited v Robyn Nikita Blanc [2023] NZTT 4422343. Legal cost [The tenant’s representative]’s submissions
During the hearings, [The tenant’s representative] submitted that legal costs should be awarded to his clients. He submitted that: a. The proceedings had necessitated legal representation due to the number and seriousness of the landlord’s breaches. b. The tenants had been put to unnecessary trouble and expense as a result of: i. Mr Zhou’s failure to comply with clear legal obligations (e.g., bond lodgement, Healthy Homes, unlawful entry). ii. His persistent denial of the tenants’ claims, requiring full hearings on two separate dates.
The nature of the issues and the conduct of the landlord justified a departure from the general rule that each party bears their own costs in Tenancy Tribunal proceedings.
[The tenant’s representative] further submitted that while the Tribunal typically does not award legal costs, this case was exceptional because the landlord’s conduct forced the tenants to engage legal assistance to protect their rights and secure redress. Mr Zhou’s submissions
Mr Zhou objected to the claim for legal costs. His response included the following points: a. He claimed that he acted in good faith throughout the tenancy and did not intend to breach any laws. b. He said he was a private landlord, not a professional property manager, and was unfamiliar with legal technicalities. c. He argued that each party had their own issues, and the situation had escalated because of a breakdown in communication, not bad faith on his part.
He opposed the idea that he should be penalised further through an award of legal costs, and emphasised that the case should be treated as a normal tenancy dispute without punitive financial consequences beyond the substantive orders. The law
Section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out the circumstances where the Tribunal can award costs. Sections 102(2) and (3) provide that that where any of the parties is represented by counsel, the Tribunal may order a party to pay the reasonable costs of another party.
In Body Corporate No 209774 v Wu [2018] NZDC 19792, the District Court held that this provision does not entitle a successful non-represented party to claim costs against a legally represented party, even where they have incurred legal costs prior to the hearing.
In French v Ryan (DC Auckland, CIV-2012-004-000711, 29 November 2012) the District Court held the Tribunal can consider the costs that would have been awarded under the appropriate category in the District Court Rules 2009). In Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3 NZLR 143, the High Court held that ‘reasonable costs’ means a reasonable contribution and not a mere gesture. It considered that a contribution in the range of 40% to 70% would likely satisfy this requirement.
In David Blair Ltd v Hawkins Arms & Engineering Ltd (1988) PRNZ 162 the High Court outlined several relevant factors in assessing costs: a. the length of the hearing, b. the amount of money involved, c. the importance of the issues d. the legal and factual complexities, e. the amount of time required for effective preparation, f. the likely or actual costs incurred.
Other factors that may be relevant include: the conduct of the parties, the degree of success, whether unnecessary steps or technical points were taken, and whether arguments lacked substance. My view
In applying the David Blair Ltd factors, I consider the following: a. The dispute required two separate hearing dates, with significant time spent on exchanges between the parties. [The tenant’s representative]'s assistance was limited in scope. b. While each party has strong views on the compensation they believe they deserve, the outcome has not met either party's full expectations. c. Although the parties’ perspective is important, I note that mediation efforts at the hearing's outset were unsuccessful due to the high level of emotional investment in the dispute. Ultimately, the parties' entrenched opinions of one another overshadowed resolution opportunities. d. The issues presented were not legally complex and are matters routinely addressed by the Tribunal. e. I accept that both parties devoted considerable time to preparing their respective cases. f. While I acknowledge the stress incurred by both parties as an additional cost, there is no evidence before me regarding [Tenant 2 – name suppressed]'s actual cost of private representation.
Balancing these factors, I decline to award costs in favour of the tenants for the following reasons: a. Both parties achieved partial success in their claims, with neither attaining complete victory. b. Awarding costs to the tenants would be unfair to Mr. Zhou, particularly given that while he prepared his own case, the tenants chose to be legally represented. c. The primary challenge in this matter was the volume of submitted information rather than the complexity of the issues.
Accordingly, I decline to award legal costs in favour of the tenants. Application fee
Both parties have partly succeeded. The costs lie where they fall. Name suppression
I must grant the tenants’ application for name suppression if they have wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings unless I consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. See s95A(1) RTA.
The outcome of this dispute is that both parties have succeeded, with the tenants substantially succeeding in their claims against the landlord.
Should I grant the tenants’ application for name suppression? The landlord opposes it.
Through [The tenant’s representative], the tenants are seeking name suppression. Although [The tenant’s representative]’s submissions were based on s95A(4) factors, his reasoning would have been similar if I were to consider public interest or whether the present case was justified for publication under s95A(1) factors.
[The tenant’s representative]’s primary submissions are: a. The tenants are vulnerable as new migrants: The tenants are recent migrants to New Zealand, unfamiliar with the local system, and in a vulnerable position. Public association with the dispute would undermine their fresh start and exacerbate stress and anxiety. b. Emotional and reputational harm to the tenants: Publication of their names would cause undue harm to their emotional health, wellbeing, and reputation, especially due to the landlord's unfounded and scandalous accusations (e.g., alleging altered or fraudulent documents). c. The landlord's conduct: The landlord's accusations were baseless, distressing, and likely would not have been made if he had legal representation. The tenants argue such conduct unfairly attacked their integrity. d. The delay and stress associated with the delay: The proceedings, delayed by adjournments and spanning nearly a year, have already caused significant stress and anxiety. e. Public Interest vs. Private Harm: They contend that the public interest in knowing their identities is outweighed by the potential harm to their privacy, emotional state, and reputation.
The landlord, Mr Zhou, filed written submissions. His primary submissions are: a. No Extraordinary Circumstances: The landlord argues that the tenants have not demonstrated exceptional circumstances justifying name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. The landlord submits emotional distress and migrant status are deemed insufficient to override public interest in transparency. b. Intimidation and Threats: The landlord claims the tenants have engaged in intimidating behaviour (e.g., loitering near the property) and sent a threatening email ("You will face serious consequences"), raising safety concerns for the landlord and his household. c. Public Interest: Transparency and accountability in legal proceedings are emphasised, with the landlord asserting that name suppression would undermine the public's right to access information about tenancy disputes. d. Allegations of Misconduct: The landlord accuses the tenants of manufacturing claims to exceed the Tribunal's jurisdictional limit and alleges perjury by the tenant ([Tenant 2 – name suppressed]) regarding property inspection statements. e. Rejection of Mediation: The landlord notes the tenants refused mediation, which could have resolved the dispute amicably without public proceedings. My view
Having carefully considered submissions from both parties, I find that the present case is no different from any other similar cases before the Tribunal and the parties’ conduct is no different from that of other litigants.
Accordingly, the tenants’ application for name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4781304 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4781304 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions