What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4954394 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 4954394?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4954394?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4954394?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11875954-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4954394 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 4954394?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4954394?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4954394?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11875954-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 142 Shifnal Drive, Randwick Park, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4954394 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4954394 — net $2,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$2,000.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$2,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,000.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name .
The Worx Property Management Limited As Agent For Harpreet Singh Deou And Harpreet Kaur must pay [The tenant/s] $2,000.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
This matter had been part heard by the tribunal on 12 November 2024 and 5 February 2025.
The tenant’s initial claim to the Tribunal had been for work orders.
The tenant gave notice to end the periodic tenancy on 23 December 2024 and the tenancy ended on 20 January 2025. The application for work orders was withdrawn. During the course of these proceedings, the tenant amended their claim to include a claim for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to comply with healthy homes standards. The landlord was advised of the amendment.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 (“RTA”).
Under section 45 RTA a landlord must comply with the healthy home standards.
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 RTA.
The tenant is a social housing provider. Social housing providers were required to comply with the healthy homes standard by 1 July 2024 ( see Schedule 1, Part 1, Section 2(2) of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019).
The tenant obtained a healthy homes compliance report dated 17 June 2024. The report states that the premises failed to comply with the healthy homes standards as to heating, under floor insulation, ventilation in both the kitchen and bathroom, drainage and draughts.
On 3 July 2024, the tenant served a 14 day breach notice on the landlord requiring the landlord to remedy the breach by providing the tenant with a signed healthy homes compliance statement indicating full and current compliance of the property or for the landlord to provide any other documents or records that would reasonably show compliance with all of the healthy homes standards . The notice gave the landlord until 17 July 2024 to comply.
The tenant says that no compliance statement or other documents that would reasonably show compliance with the healthy homes standards was provided by 17 July 2024.
As a result of that failure, the tenant provided the landlord with notice to end the tenancy on 23 December 2024. The tenancy ended on 20 January 2025. The tenant says that the notice was given as they cannot sublet the premises to their social housing clients where the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards.
The landlord says the work required to ensure compliance with the healthy home standards as to heating, ventilation in the kitchen and bathroom has been completed.
The landlord says that the work in regard to the under floor heating was unable to be completed, because the sub tenant had prevented their contractor from gaining access to the premises. The landlord confirmed that the work required to ensure that there were no non-compliant draughts has not been completed.
The landlord installed a heat pump. The heat pump has a rating of 5.5kw. The healthy homes report provided by the tenant indicates that there would need to be a heating device with a heating a minimum heating capacity of 6.6kw. The landlord says that the heat pump also has a “top up’ heater. The landlord said that if the contractor had been able to gain access to the premises, the work that would have been completed for the under floor insulation would have meant that the heat pump installed would be compliant.
In response, the tenant said that no requests for access had been made directly to them as they had previously requested. Requests for access, if they had been made, had been made to their sub tenant.
What is clear is that no documentation which would confirm the compliance of the premises with the healthy home standards has been provided to either the tenant or the Tribunal. If the work had been completed to the required standard by the landlord, it would have been relatively simple for the landlord to provide the Tribunal and the tenant with that supporting documentation. They have not done so.
In the circumstances as described above, I find that the landlord has 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 party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant’s 14 day breach notice was served on the landlord in July 2024. The landlord has had approximately 10 months to obtain evidence that the premises now comply. They have not done so. The Tribunal considers that a delay of this magnitude is a clear indication that the landlord has acted intentionally. It is in the interests of this tenant and tenants generally to have premises comply with the healthy homes standards. The tenant has been required to terminate the tenancy as a result of the landlords failure. It is an aggravating feature in this case that evidence of compliance has still not been provided to the Tribunal. In those circumstances. I consider that an award of exemplary damages of $2,000.00 is appropriate.
Both parties have applied for name suppression. All orders that had previously been made by the Tribunal in this matter required a further adjournment of the proceedings. Adjourned orders are not published. The tenant has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the tenant’s name only is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in these proceedings and the landlord’s application for suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4954394 — net $2,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$2,000.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$2,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,000.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name .
The Worx Property Management Limited As Agent For Harpreet Singh Deou And Harpreet Kaur must pay [The tenant/s] $2,000.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
This matter had been part heard by the tribunal on 12 November 2024 and 5 February 2025.
The tenant’s initial claim to the Tribunal had been for work orders.
The tenant gave notice to end the periodic tenancy on 23 December 2024 and the tenancy ended on 20 January 2025. The application for work orders was withdrawn. During the course of these proceedings, the tenant amended their claim to include a claim for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to comply with healthy homes standards. The landlord was advised of the amendment.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 (“RTA”).
Under section 45 RTA a landlord must comply with the healthy home standards.
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 RTA.
The tenant is a social housing provider. Social housing providers were required to comply with the healthy homes standard by 1 July 2024 ( see Schedule 1, Part 1, Section 2(2) of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019).
The tenant obtained a healthy homes compliance report dated 17 June 2024. The report states that the premises failed to comply with the healthy homes standards as to heating, under floor insulation, ventilation in both the kitchen and bathroom, drainage and draughts.
On 3 July 2024, the tenant served a 14 day breach notice on the landlord requiring the landlord to remedy the breach by providing the tenant with a signed healthy homes compliance statement indicating full and current compliance of the property or for the landlord to provide any other documents or records that would reasonably show compliance with all of the healthy homes standards . The notice gave the landlord until 17 July 2024 to comply.
The tenant says that no compliance statement or other documents that would reasonably show compliance with the healthy homes standards was provided by 17 July 2024.
As a result of that failure, the tenant provided the landlord with notice to end the tenancy on 23 December 2024. The tenancy ended on 20 January 2025. The tenant says that the notice was given as they cannot sublet the premises to their social housing clients where the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards.
The landlord says the work required to ensure compliance with the healthy home standards as to heating, ventilation in the kitchen and bathroom has been completed.
The landlord says that the work in regard to the under floor heating was unable to be completed, because the sub tenant had prevented their contractor from gaining access to the premises. The landlord confirmed that the work required to ensure that there were no non-compliant draughts has not been completed.
The landlord installed a heat pump. The heat pump has a rating of 5.5kw. The healthy homes report provided by the tenant indicates that there would need to be a heating device with a heating a minimum heating capacity of 6.6kw. The landlord says that the heat pump also has a “top up’ heater. The landlord said that if the contractor had been able to gain access to the premises, the work that would have been completed for the under floor insulation would have meant that the heat pump installed would be compliant.
In response, the tenant said that no requests for access had been made directly to them as they had previously requested. Requests for access, if they had been made, had been made to their sub tenant.
What is clear is that no documentation which would confirm the compliance of the premises with the healthy home standards has been provided to either the tenant or the Tribunal. If the work had been completed to the required standard by the landlord, it would have been relatively simple for the landlord to provide the Tribunal and the tenant with that supporting documentation. They have not done so.
In the circumstances as described above, I find that the landlord has 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 party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant’s 14 day breach notice was served on the landlord in July 2024. The landlord has had approximately 10 months to obtain evidence that the premises now comply. They have not done so. The Tribunal considers that a delay of this magnitude is a clear indication that the landlord has acted intentionally. It is in the interests of this tenant and tenants generally to have premises comply with the healthy homes standards. The tenant has been required to terminate the tenancy as a result of the landlords failure. It is an aggravating feature in this case that evidence of compliance has still not been provided to the Tribunal. In those circumstances. I consider that an award of exemplary damages of $2,000.00 is appropriate.
Both parties have applied for name suppression. All orders that had previously been made by the Tribunal in this matter required a further adjournment of the proceedings. Adjourned orders are not published. The tenant has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the tenant’s name only is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in these proceedings and the landlord’s application for suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4954394 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2, 142 Shifnal Drive, Randwick Park, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4954394 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2, 142 Shifnal Drive, Randwick Park, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions