What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4967955 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 4967955?

Compensation: - Bathroom Leaks: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: - Kitchen Leak: $480.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: - Loss Of Use Of Deck: $160.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: - Retaining Wall: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: for failing to comply…: $2,420.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4967955?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4967955?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11330387-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4967955 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 4967955?

Compensation: - Bathroom Leaks: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: - Kitchen Leak: $480.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: - Loss Of Use Of Deck: $160.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: - Retaining Wall: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: for failing to comply…: $2,420.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4967955?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4967955?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11330387-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

2 Anchorage Grove, Maungatapu, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4967955 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4967955 — net $5,960.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: for failing to comply with HHS	$2,420.00	for failing to comply with HHS
Compensation: - Kitchen leak	$480.00	the ceiling was in a state of disrepair and therefore order the landlord to pay $480.00 compensation. Bathroom leak
Compensation: - Bathroom leaks	$300.00	would be fair to compensate the tenant and therefore order the landlord to pay $300.00 compensation. Failure to maintain – Deck/Balcony _______________________…
Compensation: - Loss of use of deck	$160.00	- Loss of use of deck
Compensation: - Retaining wall	$200.00	- Retaining wall
Exemplary damages: - breach of s 45 of the RTA	$2,400.00	- breach of s 45 of the RTA
Net award	$5,960.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,960.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4967955 — net $5,960.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: for failing to comply with HHS	$2,420.00	for failing to comply with HHS
Compensation: - Kitchen leak	$480.00	the ceiling was in a state of disrepair and therefore order the landlord to pay $480.00 compensation. Bathroom leak
Compensation: - Bathroom leaks	$300.00	would be fair to compensate the tenant and therefore order the landlord to pay $300.00 compensation. Failure to maintain – Deck/Balcony _______________________…
Compensation: - Loss of use of deck	$160.00	- Loss of use of deck
Compensation: - Retaining wall	$200.00	- Retaining wall
Exemplary damages: - breach of s 45 of the RTA	$2,400.00	- breach of s 45 of the RTA
Net award	$5,960.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,960.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Mark Simpson and Elaine Lydia Simpson must pay [The tenant/s] $5,960.00 immediately, as calculated in the table below -
The balance of the claims is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held in Tauranga on 10 January 2025.
The tenants that appeared at the hearing were [Tenant 1], [Tenant 2], [Tenant 3] and [Tenant 4]. [Tenant 5] and [Tenant 6] did not attend the hearing.
[Tenant 1] is one of the applicant tenants but was not recorded in the original tenancy agreement however he said the original property manager agreed he could be added to the tenancy and at the hearing the current property manager did not challenge this. [Tenant 1] is therefore recorded as a tenant.
The landlords Mark and Elaine Simpson (referred to as “landlord”). Both Mark and Elaine Simpson attended the hearing with the property manager, [The property manager/s].
The tenancy address was in Maungatapu, Tauranga.
The tenancy commenced on 3 June 2022 and ended on 1 October 2024. At the end of the tenancy rent was $850 per week. A bond of $3,400 was paid by the tenants and refunded to them at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages on the basis of various alleged breaches of section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
In the application the tenant said they wanted the landlord to pay total compensation of $90,000.00 and exemplary damages. At the hearing the tenant indicated they sought 25% of their rent refunded, so effectively claimed $25,000.00.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the RTA. With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the evidence provided, but the parties should know that I have considered all the evidence.
The RTA requires the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants and to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but it is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined this application with these provisions in mind. See section 85 of the RTA.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the evidence provided, but the parties should know that I have considered all the evidence.

HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS

The tenants have claimed that the landlord have breached their obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards. The RTA requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). See Section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA
The HHS provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023. Heating standard
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenancy agreement provides that the heating capacity at the commencement of the tenancy for the main living room was 10.52KW and the gas heater provided had a capacity of 6.5kw. The agreement does not record this as a flued gas heater which would make it a qualifying heater.
The tenant says the installation of a heat pump in the living area was completed in late 2024 which is outside the compliance date.
An independent healthy homes assessment was undertaken on 9 May 2024 records the heat pump being present. I am unsure exactly when the heat pump was installed but based on the tenant’s evidence that it was installed in 2024, I consider it likely that there was a period of at least one year when the premises was not compliant with the HHS for heating. Insulation standard
The Insulation standard requires that the premises have qualifying insulation in the ceiling cavity, and under the floor if the floor is a suspended floor. To be considered ‘qualifying insulation’ the insulation must meet a minimum R value. The insulation must also be in a reasonable condition.
The HHS does provide an exemption to the required for insulation in specific circumstances for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
The HHS statement provided with the tenancy agreement records some areas of the premises has ceiling insulation that meets the insulation standard.
The HHS statement in the tenancy agreement records the following in respect of ceiling insulation: a. records no answer to the question “Do you know the R-value of ceiling insulation when it was installed?” and b. records no tick in the tick box next to the I confirm the insulation is in reasonable condition (without any mould, dampness, damage or gaps) c. state the insulation is “Thin in areas - complete insulation to be completed”.
The independent healthy homes assessment dated 9 May 2024 records that the premises is now compliant however I am unclear when the insulation was installed to reach compliance.
Based the information in the HHS statement in the tenancy agreement I consider it likely there was a period of time when the premises did not comply with the insulation standard, however there is no evidence as to what this period is therefore the do not make any further order in respect of the insulation standard or give it weight when determining the remedy in respect of breach of the HHS below. Ventilation standard
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The HHS statement in tenancy agreement records the that all habitable rooms in the property have one or more windows, doors or skylights that open to the outside and meets the HHS.
The HHS statement in tenancy agreement records that the upstairs and downstairs bathrooms fans were in good working order however the kitchen extractor fan was not working.
I understand that this was not replaced within the 90 days compliance date and the landlord’s Property Expense Report indicates the rangehood was replaced in July 2024. Accordingly, the premises did not comply with the HHS by the compliance date.
The tenant says that the ventilation was restricted in August 2024 when the kitchen door and windows were bolted shut. I will address this further below. Draught Stopping Standard
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. The exemptions do not apply to this tenancy.
The HHS statement with the tenancy agreement records that the property was not free from unintentional and unreasonable gaps or holes.
The tenant provided a photograph of one of the gaps in the conservatory door and says some windows would not close and allowed draughts. The tenants also provided an email from November 2022 in which they raise the issue of the dining room ranch slider as always drafty as the strip that holds the windowpane was missing.
The independent healthy homes assessment date 9 May 2024 also records that the property failed to meet the draught stopping standard. Accordingly, the property failing to meet the HHS in respect of the draught stopping standard and I find this was likely to have been for the entire tenancy. Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains.
The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. The exemptions do not apply to this tenancy.
The tenant claims that that premises did not have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. No photographs of the drainpipes, gutters or downpipes were provided in support of this claim.
The tenants provided an email they send to the landlord in November 2022 raising a concern about the gutters being blocked.
The landlord’s independent healthy homes assessment date 9 May 2024 records that the property failed to meet the standard due to a blocked gutter. The landlord had the gutter cleared in June 2024. However, it appears likely that there was a period of time the premises was not compliant with the drainage standard.
I understand that the tenant claims the lack of drainage contributed to the flooding in the downstairs bathroom and the erosion of the retaining wall. I am not satisfied that these issues were the result of the HHS not being met and I will address the details of those issues further below. Compensation
The tenant seeks compensation from the landlord in respect of the HHS claim.
The landlord says the concerns regarding the HHS compliance was not raised by the tenants during the tenancy, implying their concern about it was minimal.
When this was put to the tenants, they said they raised a number of concerns during the tenancy about the issues with the premises with the property manager and they believe the property manager did not relay the concerns to the property owners. Message logs and a 14-day notice emailed on 2 February 2023 indicate the tenant did raise concerns about the state of the house.
The 14-day notice said: We are still waiting for maintenance to be done on the house since we first moved in and now we have discovered when it rains heavy the water and mud are coming up from the shower down stairs and it takes a lot to dry the rooms out and carpet off room next to it and hallway. Also the retainer wall is starting to wash away Now the 2 big elements are not working on stove top, it's summer yet the house is damp as if we walk on it with socks they get wet and this is all 3 levels of house, sometimes it's like water has been sprayed from hose onto carpet and anything on floor gets damp. (emphasis added) When I spoke to the owner she said write down everything that comes to our attention and I'm sure I've done that in the many emails and txt to you but more have arisen over time but she said they were happy to fix things that need doing. We are also waiting for the scullery key to door I am now giving 14 days notice to rectify the issues or we will be escalating this to the tribunal
The tenants said they did not take any further formal steps (ie by way of an application to the Tribunal) after sending the 14 days’ notice as the property manager kept advising them the maintenance would be undertaken,
In addition, the tenants say it was only in mid-2024 when a new property manager reviewed the property's condition that the tenants came to understand the degree of the issues with the premises.
The HHS are an obligation on the landlord, and it is not for the tenant to persistently request compliance. I consider the tenants are entitled to compensation for the breach of the landlord’s obligation. Allowing for $20.00 per week of the tenancy (the tenancy duration being 121 weeks I make an order for compensation of $2,420.00. HHS information
I intend to address the landlords’ responsibilities in respect to HHS information which is set out in section 45 of the RTA.
If the tenant requests the landlord to provide information described in section 123A(1)(e) (relating to the HHS) to the tenant, the landlord must, within 21 days after the date of receiving the request, provide the information to the tenant. See Section 45 (1AC) of the RTA.
The HHS states for the purposes the RTA, a landlord must retain sufficient relevant records or documents that reasonably provide evidence of the landlord’s compliance with the HHS. However, a landlord is only required to retain records or documents that the landlord has possession of at the commencement of the tenancy or acquired during the tenancy.
A landlord must retain during and for 12 months after the termination of the tenancy the records or other documents that relate to the landlord’s compliance with the HHS. See Section 123A of the RTA.
At the hearing the tenant requested the landlord provide the records or other documents that relate to the landlord’s HHS compliance as I understand the tenant believes the landlord did have independent HHS assessments undertaken during the tenancy that have been withheld. At the hearing the landlord advised that there was only the one independent report which is the one provided in evidence dated 9 May 2024. The landlord confirmed that the HHS statement in the tenancy agreement was accurate.
In any event, the tenant has requested the landlord provide information as to any healthy home assessments during the tenancy and the landlord has 21 days to comply with this request. I have issued this decision on the basis there is no other healthy home information but note that the obligation remains on the landlord that information be provided to the tenant if there, if any.

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN

Blocked kitchen drain

The tenant says at the commencement of the tenancy there was a water leak from the upstairs kitchen which leaked through to the floor below.
The issue for the tenant was that the ceiling where the pipe was repaired was not repaired for months, leaving a hole in the ceiling which exposed them to mould and insulation. The tenants said they had to use a heater to dry the space, which led to an increase in their electricity bill. The tenant says they were compensated with $150 toward the power costs.
The landlord provided two plumbers invoices relating to the damage. The invoice dated 10 June 2022 was to clear the blocked drain and the invoice of the 14 July 2022 was to replace the leaking valves to the hot water cylinder. The ceiling repair was undertaken on 5 May 2023 and the tenants have provided a photograph showing the exposed pipe and floorboards.
The tenant should be compensated for the failure to maintain the property in that the ceiling was only repaired in May 2023. The impact for the tenants would be moderate and they should be compensated as they were not getting a premises in a reasonable state of repair.
In assessing a fair level of compensation, I consider the following factors are relevant: that this issue arose at the commencement of the tenancy, the inconvenience to the tenants, and the loss of amenity in the premises.
I have reached the conclusion that it would be fair to compensate the tenant $10.00 per week for a period of 48 weeks that the ceiling was in a state of disrepair and therefore order the landlord to pay $480.00 compensation. Bathroom leak
The tenants seek compensation for the water leak in the bathroom. There is no dispute that there was a leak issue in the downstairs bathroom The tenants say the issue was never resolved.
The tenant says that there would be water leaking whenever there was rain and issues arose with significant flooding in the lower bathroom and bedroom. Photographs were provided of the bathroom flooded which the tenants have handwritten dates for 23 November 2022, 29 January 2023, 10 May 2023.
The tenant says they raised the issue in November 2022 and provided an email as evidence of this, by way of a 14-day notice to the landlord dated 2 February 2023, which I have referred to above and again in May 2023 and that the issue persisted to the end of the tenancy. The tenants say the say the drying the areas incurred increased electricity costs.
In response, the landlord states that the tenant has exaggerated the issue and provided an expense report illustrating when leaks occurred the plumbing repairs were undertaken.
The landlord provided a report from a Plumber and gasfitter for an assessment undertaken on 19 July 2024 which stated: “No water damage or markings found on the ceilings or walls which indicate the water is entering from a low level. Tenant pointed out bath waste does not connect and suspects this is where the water is coming into the bathroom, this is most likely the cause of the water in the bathroom. It is suspected the tenant has moved the bath and dislodged the water pipe connection, we attempted to secure the bath with silicone on the feet of the bath to stop this in the future however due to the design of the bath feet there is not much surface area where the bath feet meet the ground. Precautionary work also completed during the site visit: - Scope outside around gully outside bathroom - Holes in brickwork where water waste pipes go into the building - Ground level outside the building higher than recommended by building code required us to dig this down and dig a path for ground water to drain away from the dwelling as best as possible. - Copper drain dripping against house required extension into the gully correctly - Patch holes X2 in brickwork around pvc pipes with epoxy resin - Dug around gully to allow water to drain away - Exposed PVC waste to bath, found it goes in under the retaining wall, unable to see or expose the penetration. -Told the tenant to monitor and inform the property manager if any moisture or water found to be entering the bathroom during the next heavy downpour.”
The landlord says there is no photographic evidence of a persistent leak in the downstairs bathroom or bedroom. The landlord also says leaks may have been the result of the tenants moving the bath. The tenants disputed this. I have difficulty with this claim as the landlord attended to the repairs when required.
However, I find the tenant has not proven that there was a continuous leak when it rained as indicated at the hearing, it seems more likely the issue arose less frequently than that and the landlord arranged for the issue to be addressed by a plumber when required.
The tenant should be compensated further for the period when the bathroom did leak. The impact for the tenants would be moderate and that should be compensated for because the tenants were not getting what they were paying for, that is a dry non-leaking dwelling.
In assessing what a fair level of compensation would be for this issue I consider the following factors are relevant - the inconvenience to the tenants, the limited loss of amenity in the premises and the increased power costs. I have reached the conclusion that it would be fair to compensate the tenant and therefore order the landlord to pay $300.00 compensation. Failure to maintain – Deck/Balcony
The tenants say the landlord failed to maintain the deck and in August 2024 they were served with 90-day notice to vacate for necessary structural repairs.
The 90-day notice terminating the tenancy recorded was served in reliance on section 51 (f) of the RTA which states landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice if- (f)extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner, and— (i)it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken; and (ii)the work is to begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date...
The landlord disputes that a structural engineer’s assessment had revealed any structural issues with the premises. The tenants acknowledge not seeing any specific structural report but says he was told by the property manager there was structural issues with the decking.
In any event, it is accepted by both parties that on or about 8 August 2024 the deck door and window were bolted closed to ensure nobody went on the deck due to safety concerns about the deck. The window and door remain bolted closed until the end of the tenancy on 1 October 2024. The landlord’s evidence was that the property remained ventilated to the HHS by way of alternative doors and windows in the main open living area. However, I consider the tenant should be compensated for the loss of use of the deck.
I consider compensation for the period of 8 weeks of $160.00 is appropriate to compensate the tenant for the loss of use of the deck, window and door. Failure to maintain – Retaining wall
The tenants claim the landlord failed to maintain a retaining wall. The tenants say they reported the failing retaining wall on 2 February 2023, but it was not repaired and one of the tenants undertook the repairs himself to prevent further erosion in early 2024.
The tenant raised that erosion from may have been the source of water and dirt flooding downstairs area when it rained. No photographs or video evidence was provided to illustrate this occurring.
There is reference to this issue in the inspection report of 1 October 2024 which states at page 1 “Driveway ... Stormwater management needed to stop surface water undercutting the retaining wall and putting excess water down around the basement and deck foundations”.
The landlord says the retaining wall was constructed for the tenancy and dispute that they failed to maintain it. I understand the landlord accepts the tenant undertook some work to stop erosion on the retaining wall and I consider the tenant should be compensated for this. The tenant did not provide any information as to the time and expense involved in repairing the retaining all. I have reached the conclusion that it would be fair to compensate the tenant $200.00 to reflect the tenant’s time for repairing the retaining wall and to compensate them for removing any dirt from erosion from the retaining wall from time to time and for any inconvenience the erosion caused the tenants.

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act.
If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA, specifically . the intent of that person in committing the unlawful act; the effect of the unlawful act; and the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and the public interest.
Breaches of the following obligations are deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered. a. Failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes (s 45 (1)(b)) b. Failing to comply with the healthy homes standards. (s 45 (1)(bb))
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered is $7,200.00. See Schedule 1A of the RTA. See section 45 (1A) of the RTA.
The Tribunal must take a global approach to exemplary damages meaning one order to a single maximum irrespective of the number of breaches of a section. See MBIE v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583. Therefore, there is no ability to make a further order for exemplary damages in respect of the claims the landlords failed to maintain the property. The order made below is made on a global basis taking into account the landlords’ failures to maintain the premises.
The premises failed to meet the HHS and the landlord was aware that the premises did not meet the HHS and they were working to reach compliance. The effect the noncompliance was that the tenants lived in an unhealthy home.
The tenants say the issue with premises resulted in dampness and mould growth. Some mould is visible in the conservatory in the landlord's inspection report on 8 July 2024. One tenant said she experienced respiratory issues and provided a medical certificate in support of the claim. Two of the tenants, one of which had a baby during the tenancy, vacated the premises because they were worried about the impact the state of the home was having on their health.
There is a public interest in ensuring landlords comply with the HHS.
The landlord says that the tenants did not raise the concerns with them about their non-compliance with the HHS. The tenants say they notified the landlord multiple times about the unhealthy living conditions but that no action was taken to address the issues. The tenants provided some correspondence which confirms the tenants did raise concerns.
The landlord says the tenants’ own actions of covering windows with polythene made the blinds and curtains mouldy and they therefore contributed to the mould issue. I do not consider the tenants potential contribution to mould detracts from an obligation on the landlords to comply with the HHS.
Having regards to the above factors I consider an award of exemplary damages of a third of the maximum is appropriate and make an order of exemplary damage of $2,400.00.

ADDITIONAL MATTERS

Outside Stairs

The tenant’s raised a concern that the outside steps were unsafe. The tenant acknowledged that remedial work was undertaken with respect to the stairs and no order was sought in respect of the stairs. Accordingly, I do not address this matter further in this decision. Stove
The tenants say the landlord failed to maintain the stove. This did not form part of the tenant’s application and the landlord did not agree to the claim being address at this hearing. Accordingly, I do not deal with this claim in this decision. Bond
The tenants raised that the landlord failed to lodge the bond in within 23 working days after the payment is made by the tenant for the bond. This claim did not form part of the tenant’s application and the landlord did not agree to the claim being address at this hearing. Accordingly, I did not hear from the parties in respect of this claim, but I record that Section 109(2)(b) of the RTA provides that a tenant cannot apply for exemplary damages 12 months after the date of commission of this unlawful act. The bond was lodged on 6 August 2022 and there is no continuing unlawful act here. This means exemplary damages cannot be awarded. Put another way, the tenants are too late in making this application for exemplary damages.

FILING FEE

At the tenant has not been substantially successful, having regards to the total amount claimed, I have not reimbursed the filing fee.

SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
As the tenant has had some success I have made an order for name suppression. The landlord sought name suppression. There is a public interest in the landlord’s name being published. Accordingly, the landlord’s name is published. See 95A of the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4967955 — Healthy homes at 2 Anchorage Grove, Maungatapu, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4967955 — Healthy homes at 2 Anchorage Grove, Maungatapu, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

ADDITIONAL MATTERS

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

ADDITIONAL MATTERS

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions