What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4966053 about?

The tribunal order states: Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $5,727.00 immediately as set

How much money was awarded in case 4966053?

Compensation: $2,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4966053?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4966053?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12425972-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4966053 about?

The tribunal order states: Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $5,727.00 immediately as set

How much money was awarded in case 4966053?

Compensation: $2,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4966053?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4966053?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12425972-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 95 Olsen Avenue, Hillsborough, Auckland 1042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4966053 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4966053 — net $5,727.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for failing to maintain	$2,200.00	Compensation for failing to maintain
Exemplary damages: failing to comply with Work Orders	$3,500.00	failing to comply with Work Orders
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,727.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,727.00

Order

Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $5,727.00 immediately as set out in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Lyssa Moka.
This tenancy began on 7 October 2020 and is a social housing tenancy. Previous claim
The tenant filed a claim in the Tribunal on 16 August 2023 seeking work orders and compensation due to concerns about draughts, damp and mould.
Following orders made by the Tribunal on 20 September 2023, 7 December 2023 and February 2024 the landlord obtained a builder’s report from Oakmont Homes Limited confirming that the property required maintenance work in order to be free from mould and dampness.
The Tribunal made final work orders on 12 April 2024 (the April 2024 Work Order) as follows:
The matter was then adjourned for a final hearing on 7 May 2024 to review completion/progress towards repairs and compensation.
At the hearing on 7 May 2024 the landlord did not file a report as ordered but advised that work was proceeding and would be completed by the end of the month.
The only remaining issue for determination was the issue of compensation. The rent for the tenancy had started at $100 per week, and by the date of the hearing was $120 per week. The Tribunal ordered payment of compensation to the tenant as follows to the date of the hearing as follows 1 : 1 [2024] NZTT 4657971, 7 May 2024 New claim
The tenant filed this claim on 8 August 2024 seeking the following: a. further work orders (on the basis April 2024 Work Order had not been complied with); b. compensation for failure to maintain and to ensure that the home is Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) compliant; and c. exemplary damages for failure to comply with previous work orders.
At the initial hearing on 20 November 2024
Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited explained that it sublets the property to the tenant and that any work that it wishes to do has to be done with the owner’s approval.
Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited consented to further work orders as follows:
A further hearing was held on 19 February 2025. The landlord confirmed that the door handle had been replaced and the draught stopping had been done. The landlord has obtained a further HHS report which confirmed that the property had failed in two areas (ventilation and drainage) but said that owner had fixed these issues themselves. The landlord had not obtained a report from Oakmont Homes as ordered and I was told had not approached Oakmont Homes to provide a report.
The Tribunal therefore made further orders as follows:
A further hearing was then held on 24 April 2025. The landlord had filed an updated Healthy Homes report confirming compliance with the HHS. The landlord explained that Oakmont Homes were now in liquidation and so provided a report from Total Property Services. Regrettably however this report made no reference to the work set out in the April 2024 Work Order and so it was not possible to determine whether the landlord had complied, and if so, to what extent.
The Tribunal made further orders as follows:
The matter then came back before the Tribunal on 19 June 2025. The landlord had obtained a report from RestorePro but that report was not focussed on whether or not the landlord has complied with the April 2024 Work Order but instead investigated matters afresh and made recommendations.
None of the work identified had commenced and the landlord had not filed a timeline setting out when work would be completed.
Having read the report the Tribunal was satisfied that the report identified work that needed to be done to resolve the issues of damp and mould at the property and so made orders as follows:
A further hearing was held on 20 August 2025. Both the landlord and the tenant confirmed that the work had been done. The landlord provided a document setting out the work done in compliance with the April 2024 Work Order, the date of completion, and provided receipts.
The landlord explained that they have had great difficulty trying to make the owner of the property understand the need to comply with Tribunal Work Orders. They said that Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited has had to reluctantly pay for the work to be done to ensure compliance, noting that it was not their policy to pay for improvements. Compensation
The tenant and his family have continued to live in the home that suffers from mould and damp.
The Tribunal had previously ordered compensation in the amount of $20 per week (on the basis of a rental of $120 per week) to 7 May 2024.
As the work was not completed until 2 July 2025 the tenant is entitled to further compensation for loss of amenity for the period of 60 weeks, being $1,200.
In addition I order compensation in the amount of $1,000 for increased power costs, time spent cleaning and the ongoing stress of living in a damp and mouldy home. Exemplary damages
The tenant has sought exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to comply with the April 2024 Work Order.
Breaching a work order under s 78A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $5,000.00. See section 108(2A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The Tribunal made the April 2024 Work Order to ensure that the landlord did necessary and required maintenance to prevent damp and mould, but that order was not complied with until July 2025.
At the final hearing the landlord explained that they require the consent of the owner to maintenance work, but the owner was reluctant to do so and did not understand the need to comply with Tribunal work orders. I do not consider that explanation to be a reasonable excuse. The landlord is in the business of providing housing to vulnerable people. It is for the landlord to ensure that it has suitable contractual arrangements in place with its owners to ensure that maintenance work is completed in a timely manner and Tribunal work orders are complied with.
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) RTA.
The landlord knowingly failed to comply with the Work Order. I consider that it would be just to award exemplary damages because: a. the work was not completed until well over a year after the April 2024 Work Order was made, during which the tenant and his family continued to live in damp conditions; b. the tenant had to file a new claim to seek compliance; c. the landlord has failed to comply with subsequent orders made to ensure compliance which has led to multiple hearings, all of which the tenant had to attend; d. this matter has taken up significant Tribunal time and resourcing; and e. it is the public interest for landlords to comply with Tribunal work orders so that necessary maintenance is completed without delay.
In determining the amount of exemplary damages to be awarded I record that it is the usual practice of the Tribunal to award approximately 1/3 of the maximum amount of the first breach.
I note that this landlord has recently been the subject of an award of exemplary damages for failing to comply with a Tribunal work order. This appears to the second breach of this nature 2 .
I consider that an award of exemplary damages in the vicinity of approximately 2/3 of the maximum amount to appropriate, and so order exemplary damages in the amount of $3,500. Filing fee
The tenant has been the successful party. I have therefore reimbursed the filing fee. The tenant has applied for and is entitled to an order for name suppression pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4966053 — net $5,727.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for failing to maintain	$2,200.00	Compensation for failing to maintain
Exemplary damages: failing to comply with Work Orders	$3,500.00	failing to comply with Work Orders
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,727.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,727.00

Order

Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $5,727.00 immediately as set out in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Lyssa Moka.
This tenancy began on 7 October 2020 and is a social housing tenancy. Previous claim
The tenant filed a claim in the Tribunal on 16 August 2023 seeking work orders and compensation due to concerns about draughts, damp and mould.
Following orders made by the Tribunal on 20 September 2023, 7 December 2023 and February 2024 the landlord obtained a builder’s report from Oakmont Homes Limited confirming that the property required maintenance work in order to be free from mould and dampness.
The Tribunal made final work orders on 12 April 2024 (the April 2024 Work Order) as follows:
The matter was then adjourned for a final hearing on 7 May 2024 to review completion/progress towards repairs and compensation.
At the hearing on 7 May 2024 the landlord did not file a report as ordered but advised that work was proceeding and would be completed by the end of the month.
The only remaining issue for determination was the issue of compensation. The rent for the tenancy had started at $100 per week, and by the date of the hearing was $120 per week. The Tribunal ordered payment of compensation to the tenant as follows to the date of the hearing as follows 1 : 1 [2024] NZTT 4657971, 7 May 2024 New claim
The tenant filed this claim on 8 August 2024 seeking the following: a. further work orders (on the basis April 2024 Work Order had not been complied with); b. compensation for failure to maintain and to ensure that the home is Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) compliant; and c. exemplary damages for failure to comply with previous work orders.
At the initial hearing on 20 November 2024
Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited explained that it sublets the property to the tenant and that any work that it wishes to do has to be done with the owner’s approval.
Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited consented to further work orders as follows:
A further hearing was held on 19 February 2025. The landlord confirmed that the door handle had been replaced and the draught stopping had been done. The landlord has obtained a further HHS report which confirmed that the property had failed in two areas (ventilation and drainage) but said that owner had fixed these issues themselves. The landlord had not obtained a report from Oakmont Homes as ordered and I was told had not approached Oakmont Homes to provide a report.
The Tribunal therefore made further orders as follows:
A further hearing was then held on 24 April 2025. The landlord had filed an updated Healthy Homes report confirming compliance with the HHS. The landlord explained that Oakmont Homes were now in liquidation and so provided a report from Total Property Services. Regrettably however this report made no reference to the work set out in the April 2024 Work Order and so it was not possible to determine whether the landlord had complied, and if so, to what extent.
The Tribunal made further orders as follows:
The matter then came back before the Tribunal on 19 June 2025. The landlord had obtained a report from RestorePro but that report was not focussed on whether or not the landlord has complied with the April 2024 Work Order but instead investigated matters afresh and made recommendations.
None of the work identified had commenced and the landlord had not filed a timeline setting out when work would be completed.
Having read the report the Tribunal was satisfied that the report identified work that needed to be done to resolve the issues of damp and mould at the property and so made orders as follows:
A further hearing was held on 20 August 2025. Both the landlord and the tenant confirmed that the work had been done. The landlord provided a document setting out the work done in compliance with the April 2024 Work Order, the date of completion, and provided receipts.
The landlord explained that they have had great difficulty trying to make the owner of the property understand the need to comply with Tribunal Work Orders. They said that Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited has had to reluctantly pay for the work to be done to ensure compliance, noting that it was not their policy to pay for improvements. Compensation
The tenant and his family have continued to live in the home that suffers from mould and damp.
The Tribunal had previously ordered compensation in the amount of $20 per week (on the basis of a rental of $120 per week) to 7 May 2024.
As the work was not completed until 2 July 2025 the tenant is entitled to further compensation for loss of amenity for the period of 60 weeks, being $1,200.
In addition I order compensation in the amount of $1,000 for increased power costs, time spent cleaning and the ongoing stress of living in a damp and mouldy home. Exemplary damages
The tenant has sought exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to comply with the April 2024 Work Order.
Breaching a work order under s 78A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $5,000.00. See section 108(2A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The Tribunal made the April 2024 Work Order to ensure that the landlord did necessary and required maintenance to prevent damp and mould, but that order was not complied with until July 2025.
At the final hearing the landlord explained that they require the consent of the owner to maintenance work, but the owner was reluctant to do so and did not understand the need to comply with Tribunal work orders. I do not consider that explanation to be a reasonable excuse. The landlord is in the business of providing housing to vulnerable people. It is for the landlord to ensure that it has suitable contractual arrangements in place with its owners to ensure that maintenance work is completed in a timely manner and Tribunal work orders are complied with.
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) RTA.
The landlord knowingly failed to comply with the Work Order. I consider that it would be just to award exemplary damages because: a. the work was not completed until well over a year after the April 2024 Work Order was made, during which the tenant and his family continued to live in damp conditions; b. the tenant had to file a new claim to seek compliance; c. the landlord has failed to comply with subsequent orders made to ensure compliance which has led to multiple hearings, all of which the tenant had to attend; d. this matter has taken up significant Tribunal time and resourcing; and e. it is the public interest for landlords to comply with Tribunal work orders so that necessary maintenance is completed without delay.
In determining the amount of exemplary damages to be awarded I record that it is the usual practice of the Tribunal to award approximately 1/3 of the maximum amount of the first breach.
I note that this landlord has recently been the subject of an award of exemplary damages for failing to comply with a Tribunal work order. This appears to the second breach of this nature 2 .
I consider that an award of exemplary damages in the vicinity of approximately 2/3 of the maximum amount to appropriate, and so order exemplary damages in the amount of $3,500. Filing fee
The tenant has been the successful party. I have therefore reimbursed the filing fee. The tenant has applied for and is entitled to an order for name suppression pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4966053 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2, 95 Olsen Avenue, Hillsborough, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4966053 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2, 95 Olsen Avenue, Hillsborough, Auckland 1042

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