What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4983788 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 4983788?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4983788?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4983788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11288930-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4983788 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 4983788?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4983788?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4983788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11288930-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

349 Postman Road, Dairy Flat, RD 4, Dairy Flat 0794 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4983788 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

349 Postman Road, Dairy Flat, RD 4, Dairy Flat 0794 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4983788 — Healthy homes | TenantCheck

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of [The tenant/s] name.
Shirley Shi As Agent For Du Val GP Trustees Ltd Trustees Ltd must pay [The tenant/s] $2,327.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Shirley Shi As Agent For Du Val GP Trustees Ltd Trustees Ltd must pay [The tenant/s] $2,327.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord is Du Val GP Trustees Ltd. Ms Shi is the landlord's authorised agent.
The hearing involves a dispute between [The tenant/s], the tenant, and Du Val GP Trustees Ltd, represented by Ms Shi, the landlord. At the beginning of the hearing, I confirmed the topics of the disputes with [The tenant/s], which include the following: a. Non-compliance with Healthy Home Standards: [The tenant/s] claims that the property did not meet the Healthy Home Standards, particularly regarding insulation and kitchen ventilation. She alleges that the house was excessively cold during winter and that black mould was present, which caused health issues for her and her family. b. Failure to Maintain the Property: [The tenant/s] raised several maintenance issues, including a leaking roof, a non-functional dishwasher, improperly installed carpet, windows without latches, and doors that could not be locked (except for the front door). c. Retaliatory Notice: [The tenant/s] alleges that she was given a termination notice to vacate the property immediately after a mediation phone call. She claims this notice was retaliatory, as it followed her complaints about the property's condition. d. Taking Borders' Money: [The tenant/s] claims that Ms Shi took over the rent payments from her flatmates, who were living in a workshop/unit on the property. She argues that this workshop/unit was part of the rental agreement she initially signed, and she should have been entitled to the rent from her flatmates. e. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment: [The tenant/s] added that her quiet enjoyment of the property was breached when a woman ([Name redacted], last name is unknown) and her child, who were allegedly squatters, moved into the barn on the property without her consent. She claims this caused significant disruption, including conflicts over power and water usage, and made her feel uncomfortable in her own home. Despite her efforts to have the woman removed, Ms Shi signed her up as a flatmate, further complicating the situation.
These topics form the basis of the dispute, with [The tenant/s] seeking remedies for the landlord's alleged breaches, including refunds for the application fee and compensation for the issues she faced during her tenancy.

How did the tenancy start, and when did it end?

The tenancy, in this case, has a somewhat complex history, which I will outline based on the information provided during the hearing: Initial Occupation (June 2023): a. [The tenant/s] began living at the property on 20 June 2023, but she was not formally on the tenancy agreement at that time. She was paying rent to [Previous tenant], the tenant who was on the agreement at the time. [The tenant/s] described this arrangement as a flatmate situation, where she lived in the house and paid rent to [Previous tenant], who was responsible for the entire premises. [Previous tenant] was the tenant under Rentex, the property management company at the time. Formal Tenancy Agreement (February 2024): b. [The tenant/s] was formally added to the tenancy agreement on 15 February 2024, after [Previous tenant] stopped paying rent and was removed from the property. From this date, [The tenant/s] became the tenant directly under the landlord, Du Val GP Trustees Ltd. The tenancy agreement was periodic. End of Tenancy (December 2024): c. [The tenant/s] vacated the property on 7 December 2024. She claims that she was given a termination notice to vacate the property, which she alleges was retaliatory and issued immediately after a mediation phone call regarding the property's condition. However, she ended up leaving earlier, giving two weeks' notice once she found alternative accommodation.
In summary: a. Start of Occupation: 20 June 2023 (as a flatmate, not on the tenancy agreement). b. Start of Formal Tenancy: 15 February 2024 (added to the tenancy agreement). c. End of Tenancy: 7 December 2024 ([The tenant/s] vacated the property)

What was the bond arrangement before the hearing?

The bond arrangement between [The tenant/s] and the landlord, Du Val GP Trustees Ltd, was discussed during the hearing. The key details are: a. The total bond amount was $3,200. The Bond Centre held this amount in trust. b. [The tenant/s] and Ms Shi reached an agreement regarding the bond refund. According to [The tenant/s], the landlord agreed to refund $2,570 out of the bond's $3,200. The landlord kept the difference, which was $630. This retention was allegedly for cleaning and maintenance costs, though [The tenant/s] disputed this, stating that she was told not to clean the property upon vacating. c. [The tenant/s] confirmed that both parties had signed the bond refund form, but she had not received the refund at the time of the hearing. She mentioned that she had provided the Bond Centre with her bank account details and was waiting for the refund to be processed.
Since both parties had reached an agreement on the bond refund, I indicated that I would not disturb the bond arrangement already made.
In summary, the bond arrangement was as follows: a. Total Bond: $3,200 b. Agreed Refund to [The tenant/s]: $2,570 c. Retained by Landlord: $630.
The bond refund process was underway, but at the time of the hearing, the funds had not yet been transferred to [The tenant/s]. Why did I decline to hear the abovementioned topics under paragraphs 3(d) and (e)?
I declined to hear the disputes under the topics of "taking border's money" and "breach of quiet enjoyment" for the following reasons: Taking Border's Money: a. Unlawful Residential Premises: Based on the evidence and descriptions provided during the hearing, it appeared that the workshop/unit where the flatmates were living was likely unlawful residential premises. The workshop/unit was described as a metal structure without proper insulation or compliance with residential standards. This raised significant concerns about whether the premises were fit for habitation. b. Lack of Standing: Neither [The tenant/s] nor Ms Shi had the legal standing to claim or dispute the rent payments from the flatmates. The individuals who lived in the workshop/unit ([Names redacted] – names may not be correct) were the ones who should have raised any claims regarding the conditions or the legality of their living arrangements. Since they were not present in the hearing, and one of them had passed away, it was inappropriate for me to adjudicate on this matter. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment: c. Squatters and Unauthorised Occupants: The woman ([Name redacted]) and her child who moved into the barn were described as squatters who had entered the property without [The tenant/s]'s consent. While this caused significant disruption to [The tenant/s]'s quiet enjoyment, the situation was complicated because Ms Shi later signed [Redacted] up as a flatmate despite the unlawful nature of her occupancy. d. [The tenant/s]'s Role in the Situation: [The tenant/s] admitted that she accepted $50 per week from Ms Shi. This indicated that [The tenant/s] had, to some extent, participated in the arrangement by consent, even if reluctantly. This made it difficult to fully uphold her claim of a breach of quiet enjoyment, as she had accepted the situation for a financial reward. e. Legal Complexity: The issue of quiet enjoyment was intertwined with the unlawful occupancy of the barn, which was not a lawful residential premises. If [Redacted] wished to pursue claims regarding her living conditions, she must file a separate application.
I declined to hear these issues because they involved third parties (the flatmates and [Redacted]) who were not part of the current hearing and because the premises in question (the workshop/unit and barn) appeared to be unlawful residential premises. Additionally, [The tenant/s]'s acceptance of payments from Ms Shi weakened her claim regarding the breach of quiet enjoyment.
I will now turn to the claims from paragraphs 3(a) to (c). Non-compliance with Healthy Home Standards
Both [The tenant/s] and Ms Shi presented their respective cases during the hearing. Below is a summary of each party's position: [The tenant/s]’s claim
[The tenant/s] claimed that the property did not comply with the Healthy Home Standards, particularly in the following areas:
Insulation and Ventilation: a. She stated that "[t]he house was really cold all the time, especially throughout winter. Even with the fire and the heat pump going, it wasn't enough heat." She argued that the lack of proper insulation contributed to the cold conditions. b. She also claimed that the house had black mould, which affected her health and damaged her belongings, including mattresses, clothes, and shoes. She attributed the mould to poor ventilation and insulation.
Health Issues: a. [The tenant/s] reported that the mould caused breathing issues for her and her family, particularly because her bedroom was located near the bathroom, which she claimed was a source of dampness and mould.
Healthy Home Standards Report: a. She referenced a Healthy Home Standards report dated 15 January 2024, which her flatmate, [Previous tenant], commissioned. The report identified non-compliance issues, including inadequate insulation and kitchen ventilation, that were not compliant with the standards.
Landlord's Awareness: a. [The tenant/s] claimed that she had informed the landlord and property managers (Rentex and later Aspire Property Management) about the issues during house inspections. She stated that nothing was done to address the problems. Ms Shi’s reply
Landlord's Lack of Awareness: a. Ms Shi argued that the landlord was not aware of the Healthy Home Standards issues until October 2024, when she received the Healthy Home Standards report. She claimed that [The tenant/s] had not formally notified the landlord of the issues earlier, as required under the tenancy laws (e.g., a 14-day notice for repairs).
Insulation in Place: a. Ms Shi submitted a photo showing insulation material in the ceiling, which she claimed had been there for over a year. She argued that the insulation was present but that the Healthy Home Standards report might not have been updated to reflect this.
Tenant's Living Habits: a. Ms Shi suggested that the mould and dampness issues were partly due to [The tenant/s]'s living habits. She claimed that [The tenant/s] kept the windows and curtains closed, preventing proper ventilation and sunlight from entering the house. She also stated that she had advised [The tenant/s] to open the windows and let sunlight in to reduce mould.
Opportunity to Leave: a. Ms Shi argued that [The tenant/s] had long been aware of the property's condition and had chosen to stay despite the issues. She claimed that she had encouraged [The tenant/s] to find alternative accommodation if the property was unsuitable, but she had chosen to remain.
Repairs After Vacating: a. Ms Shi mentioned that after [The tenant/s] vacated the property in December 2024, she discovered a hole in the ceiling. It had been repaired. She claimed that this repair work showed that insulation was present and that the property was being maintained.

Did Insulation comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, 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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The evidence (a Healthy Homes Standards Compliance Report by Landlord Solution Ltd dated 15 January 2024 and Ms Shi’s photo of a hole in the ceiling) before me satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to meet the minimum insulation standards as required by the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
I do not accept Ms. Shi’s argument that [The tenant/s] was aware of the issues and chose to remain. Her arguments on this point are concerning because she blamed her tenant for failing to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

Did Kitchen Ventilation Comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply 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 2024.
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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
In this case, I have determined that the breach relates to kitchen ventilation. The landlord had 120 days to comply with the standards after the tenancy commenced on 15 February 2024. In other words, the landlord had until 13 June 2024 to comply with the standards. But the landlord did not. The premises were not compliant with the ventilation standards between 13 June 2024 and 7 December 2024, or 5 months and 25 days.
Accordingly, I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
I consider small compensation justified for failing to comply with insulation standards due to the apparent lack of adequate ceiling insulation and absence of underfloor insulation. The winter months in New Zealand are from June to August 2024. [The tenant/s] is awarded $100 monthly compensation between June and August 2024, totalling $300. I find this amount appropriate, as [The tenant/s] has not provided any evidence to substantiate her claims that her health was adversely affected by insufficient insulation or that her items were damaged due to this inadequate insulation.
I do not consider compensation for kitchen ventilation warranted because the non-compliance was less serious. There is no evidence before me that [The tenant/s] was affected by inadequate kitchen ventilation. Failure to Maintain the Property
In relation to the Failure to Maintain the Property claim, both [The tenant/s] and Ms Shi presented their respective cases during the hearing. Below is a summary of each party's position: [The tenant/s] claim
[The tenant/s] raised several maintenance issues that the landlord did not address during her tenancy. Her key points included:
Leaking Roof: a. She reported a leak in her daughter's bedroom during house inspections conducted by Rentex and later Aspire Property Management (both are property managers). Despite her notifications, no repairs were made.
Non-Functional Dishwasher: a. [The tenant/s] said the dishwasher had been leaking through the pipes into the sink since around July 2023 (when she was living with [Previous tenant] as a flatmate). She stopped using it and claimed it was never repaired.
Improperly Installed Carpet: a. She argued that the carpet was not installed properly, with edges coming loose and causing her family to cut their feet on the exposed staples or tacks.
Windows Without Latches: a. [The tenant/s] mentioned that one window did not have latches and could not shut properly. To secure it, she had to tape it shut from the outside.
Doors That Could Not Be Locked: a. She claimed that none of the doors in the house, except the front door, could be locked. This included sliding doors with broken latches and bolts, which she had to secure with pieces of wood.
Kitchen Door Without a Handle: a. [The tenant/s] stated that the kitchen door leading outside did not have a handle on either side, making it difficult to open or close. She had to jam it shut with a tea towel.
General Lack of Repairs: a. She argued that no repairs were carried out despite reporting these issues to the property managers (Rentex and Aspire Property Management) and later to Ms Shi. She provided text messages as evidence of her communications with Ms Shi about the maintenance issues. Ms Shi's reply
Ms Shi disputed [The tenant/s] claims and provided the following responses:
Leaking Roof: a. Ms Shi argued that there was no evidence of a leak in the roof. She stated that after [The tenant/s] vacated the property, she had a builder inspect the roof and found no leaks. She suggested that any water issues might have been caused by [The tenant/s] use of the property.
Dishwasher: a. Ms Shi acknowledged that the dishwasher was "as is" when [The tenant/s] moved in and claimed that [The tenant/s] had not formally requested repairs. She also stated that the dishwasher was not essential for habitability and that [The tenant/s] had chosen not to use it.
Carpet Installation: a. Ms Shi did not directly address the carpet issue but implied that the property was rented in its existing condition, and [The tenant/s] accepted it.
Windows and Doors: a. Ms Shi claimed that the windows had ledges and were secure, as required for child safety around the swimming pool. She also argued that the sliding doors could be secured with a timber bar, which she demonstrated with photos. She stated that [The tenant/s] had not raised these issues formally during her tenancy.
Kitchen Door: a. Ms Shi admitted that the kitchen door did not have a handle but claimed that [The tenant/s] had temporarily fixed it herself without providing measurements for a replacement handle. She argued that the door was not a priority issue and that [The tenant/s] had not followed up on her request for measurements.
General Maintenance: a. Ms Shi argued that [The tenant/s] had not issued formal 14-day notices for repairs, as required under tenancy laws. She also claimed that [The tenant/s] had chosen to stay in the property despite the issues and had not taken steps to address them earlier.
Key Points of Contention: a. Leaking Roof: [The tenant/s] claimed there was a leak, while Ms Shi argued that after inspection, there was no evidence of a leak. b. Dishwasher: [The tenant/s] said it was broken and leaking, while Ms Shi argued it was rented "as is" and not essential. c. Carpet: [The tenant/s] claimed it was improperly installed and hazardous, while Ms Shi did not directly address this issue. d. Windows and Doors: [The tenant/s] argued they were insecure, while Ms Shi claimed they were functional and secure with additional measures (e.g., timber bars). e. Formal Notices: Ms Shi argued that [The tenant/s] did not issue formal 14- day notices for repairs, while [The tenant/s] claimed she had reported the issues during inspections and via text messages. My view
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
During the hearing, I reminded [The tenant/s] the burden is on her to prove her claims on the balance of probabilities. I noted that [The tenant/s] did not issue 14-day notice to remedy but many of her complaints were noted in a text message to Ms Shi on 2 August 2024. The text message states: “The house isn’t healthy home standard, it’s for all black mould, the doors don’t lock, the pool doesn’t go, the fencings is broken so you can’t use the yard, the roofs leaking the dishwasher doesn’t go plus plenty more...”
[The tenant/s] is responsible for notifying the landlord as soon as possible after discovering any damage to the premises or of the need for any repairs. See section 40(1)(d) RTA. There is no specific legal requirement under section 40(a)(d) RTA that [The tenant/s] must issue a 14-day notice to remedy under section 56 (1)(b) RTA provided [The tenant/s] “notified” Ms Shi. In the present case, [The tenant/s] did notify Ms Shi of her complaints on 2 August 2024 via a text message.
However, [The tenant/s] is still required to discharge the burden of proof that her complaints have been substantiated. The evidence she has submitted only supports the following claims: a. The kitchen door had no handle, and she had to jam it shut with a tea towel. b. One of the sliding doors needed to be secured with a timber bar. c. The carpet was not installed properly (limited to an area, not the entire house).
In her evidence, Ms Shi confirmed that the dishwasher was broken and leaking. She said it was rented "as is" and not essential.
I do not accept Ms Shi’s submissions that because the dishwasher was rented “as is” and not essential the landlord therefore did not have the responsibility to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. This is because Section 45(3) RTA states the landlord’s responsibilities under subsections (1) to (1AAB) “... shall apply notwithstanding that the tenant has notice of the state of the premises at the time at which the tenancy agreement is entered into. In any event, [The tenant/s] notified Ms Shi via a text message on 2 August 2024 that “... dishwasher doesn’t go...”
I am once again deeply troubled by Ms. Shi’s assertions that [The tenant/s] was responsible for her complaints. The recurring theme throughout her submissions revolves around [The tenant/s] failure to report the matters to her or her choice to remain on the premises.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
In my view, the landlord has failed to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair in relation to: a. The kitchen door did not have a handle; b. One of the sliding doors could only be secured with a timber bar. c. The carpet was not installed properly (limited to an area, not the entire house d. The dishwasher was not functional.
Accordingly, I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
[The tenant/s] was not specific about the compensation in her submissions. However, she had the tenancy between 15 February 2024 and 7 December 2024 or 9 months and 23 days. Inconvenience to [The tenant/s] and safety concerns to her and her children are common sense.
I consider compensation for $500 is appropriate.
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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that the breach is intentional. The landlord is responsible for complying with Healthy Homes Standards and maintaining the property in a reasonable state of repair.
I do not accept Ms. Shi’s argument that [The tenant/s] decision to continue renting the premises would lessen the seriousness of the breach. I also do not accept her submission that [The tenant/s] was at fault for failing to bring the maintenance issues to her attention.
I consider exemplary damage for $500 appropriate. Retaliatory notice
In relation to the Retaliatory Notice claim, both [The tenant/s] and Ms Shi presented their respective cases during the hearing. Below is a summary of each party's position: [The tenant/s] Claim
[The tenant/s] claimed that the termination notice to vacate the property was retaliatory and issued in response to her complaints about the property's condition. Her key points included:
Timing of the Notice: a. She stated that the notice was issued an hour after a mediation phone call on 8 October 2024, during which she raised issues about the property's failure to comply with Healthy Home Standards and other maintenance problems. She argued that the timing of the notice was not coincidental and was directly linked to her complaints. [The tenant/s] said in her evidence: "We had a mediation phone call, and an hour after hanging up on that phone call, I was given 90 days notice to vacate."
Grounds for the Notice: a. [The tenant/s] said that the notice cited two reasons: i. The property failed Healthy Home Standards. ii. The owner intended to move into the property. b. She disputed both grounds, arguing that the owner did not move into the property after she vacated and that the property was re-rented to other tenants.
Pressure to Leave: a. [The tenant/s] alleged that after receiving the notice, Ms Shi repeatedly pressured her to leave immediately through emails and text messages, even though the notice allowed her 90 days to vacate. She claimed this added to the stress of finding new accommodation.
Early Vacating: a. [The tenant/s] stated that she eventually gave two weeks' notice to vacate the property after finding alternative accommodation. She argued that this was done under duress due to the pressure from Ms Shi and the ongoing issues with the property. Ms Shi's Reply
Ms Shi disputed [The tenant/s] claims and provided the following responses:
Timing of the Notice: a. Ms Shi acknowledged that the notice was issued on 8 October 2024 but argued that it was not retaliatory. She stated that the notice was initially a 63-day notice issued on 3 October 2024, based on the landlord's intention to move into the property under section 51(1)(a) RTA. However, after receiving the Healthy Homes Standards report on 8 October 2024, she extended the notice to 90 days to allow [The tenant/s] more time to find alternative accommodation.
Grounds for the Notice: a. Ms Shi confirmed that the notice cited the property's failure to meet Healthy Home Standards and the landlord's intention to move in. She argued that these were legitimate reasons for issuing the notice and not retaliatory.
Landlord's Financial Situation: a. Ms Shi explained that the landlord was facing severe financial difficulties, including unpaid rates and mortgage arrears. She claimed that the landlord intended to move into the property to reduce costs but later decided to rent it out again due to financial constraints.
[The tenant/s] Decision to Leave: a. Ms Shi argued that [The tenant/s] chose to leave voluntarily and gave two weeks' notice to vacate the property, which was unrelated to the 90-day notice. She stated that [The tenant/s] had been looking for alternative accommodation since August 2024 and had already decided to move out.
No Retaliation: a. Ms Shi denied that the notice was retaliatory and emphasised that she had acted in good faith, extending the notice period from 63 to 90 days to accommodate [The tenant/s] situation. She also stated that she had provided [The tenant/s] with references to help her find new accommodation.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. My view
During the hearing, [The tenant/s] was unable to provide concrete evidence to prove that the landlord did not move into the property after she vacated. However, Ms Shi admitted that the landlord did not move into the property after [The tenant/s] left. Ms Shi explained that the landlord had initially intended to move in due to financial difficulties, such as unpaid rates and mortgage arrears, but later decided to rent the property again to generate income. Ms Shi stated that the property was rented to flatmates after [The tenant/s] vacated.
Ms Shi's explanation of the landlord's initial intention to move into the property due to financial difficulties contradicts her subsequent statement that the landlord decided to rent the property to "flatmates" to generate income. This inconsistency raises questions about the genuineness of the landlord's original intention to move in, which was one of the grounds for the 63-day termination notice under section 51(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
In relation to the landlord's initial intention to move into the property, Ms Shi stated: “The landlord was thinking about coming back to the country... they are actually intending to take the possession, but because I have to be diplomatic to keep her [The tenant/s] happy as well... I'm the one trying to do as much diplomatic as possible, just say as Cantonese as possible."
Regarding the change of plan, Ms Shi explained: "The landlord instead of renting elsewhere, they better move in and accept the condition themselves. So I thought [it] was the best solution overall... but they need the money because as I told you, they owe so much rates, so much mortgage so..."
The contradiction arises because Ms Shi initially claimed that the landlord intended to move into the property to reduce costs, but then stated that, due to financial constraints, they decided to rent it out again to generate income. This suggests that the landlord's plans changed, but it also raises questions about the genuineness of the original intention to move in, which was one of the grounds for the termination notice.
Ms Shi's explanations were contradictory and did not make logical sense. If financial issues were the reason the landlord planned to take possession of the property, it would have been more financially prudent for [The tenant/s] to continue the tenancy. Instead, the landlord did not move in, and the property was rented to "flatmates." The landlord’s financial position remained unchanged, except that [The tenant/s] was no longer the tenant.
The timing of the termination notice is notable, whether it was on 3 October 2024 before the mediation phone call or on 8 October 2024, as [The tenant/s] stated that it came within an hour after the mediation phone call ended. Ms Shi did not dispute this timing, which supports her claim that the notice was retaliatory.
Based on the facts, I conclude that the termination notice issued on 8 October 2024 was retaliatory. [The tenant/s] had proposed to exercise her rights, powers, and remedies under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 against the landlord, and the notice was issued in response to her complaints. I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Issuing a retaliatory notice is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See Schedule 1A, section 54(3).
If a party has intentionally committed an unlawful act, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is of the view it would be just to do so, considering the party’s intent, the consequences of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. Refer to section 109(3) RTA.
Having regard to all relevant factors, I find it just to award exemplary damages, albeit a moderate amount. [The tenant/s] vacated the premises after the termination notice was issued and after Ms Shi repeatedly pressured her to do so. Although she ultimately gave a two-week notice to vacate, this was not voluntary, as Ms Shi claimed. [The tenant/s] complaints about the landlord’s breaches of their obligations under the RTA were largely proven, and she was exercising her legal rights.
There is a strong public interest in deterring landlords from terminating tenancies when tenants assert their rights or lodge complaints. To uphold this principle, I award exemplary damages for $1,000.00. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claims, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claims, I have ordered the name to be suppressed.
However, I am not inclined to extend the suppression to the property's address because it was not compliant with Healthy Homes standards at the time, was not maintained to a satisfactory level, and the barn and workshop/unit on the property may not be lawful residential premises.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of [The tenant/s] name.
Shirley Shi As Agent For Du Val GP Trustees Ltd Trustees Ltd must pay [The tenant/s] $2,327.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Shirley Shi As Agent For Du Val GP Trustees Ltd Trustees Ltd must pay [The tenant/s] $2,327.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord is Du Val GP Trustees Ltd. Ms Shi is the landlord's authorised agent.
The hearing involves a dispute between [The tenant/s], the tenant, and Du Val GP Trustees Ltd, represented by Ms Shi, the landlord. At the beginning of the hearing, I confirmed the topics of the disputes with [The tenant/s], which include the following: a. Non-compliance with Healthy Home Standards: [The tenant/s] claims that the property did not meet the Healthy Home Standards, particularly regarding insulation and kitchen ventilation. She alleges that the house was excessively cold during winter and that black mould was present, which caused health issues for her and her family. b. Failure to Maintain the Property: [The tenant/s] raised several maintenance issues, including a leaking roof, a non-functional dishwasher, improperly installed carpet, windows without latches, and doors that could not be locked (except for the front door). c. Retaliatory Notice: [The tenant/s] alleges that she was given a termination notice to vacate the property immediately after a mediation phone call. She claims this notice was retaliatory, as it followed her complaints about the property's condition. d. Taking Borders' Money: [The tenant/s] claims that Ms Shi took over the rent payments from her flatmates, who were living in a workshop/unit on the property. She argues that this workshop/unit was part of the rental agreement she initially signed, and she should have been entitled to the rent from her flatmates. e. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment: [The tenant/s] added that her quiet enjoyment of the property was breached when a woman ([Name redacted], last name is unknown) and her child, who were allegedly squatters, moved into the barn on the property without her consent. She claims this caused significant disruption, including conflicts over power and water usage, and made her feel uncomfortable in her own home. Despite her efforts to have the woman removed, Ms Shi signed her up as a flatmate, further complicating the situation.
These topics form the basis of the dispute, with [The tenant/s] seeking remedies for the landlord's alleged breaches, including refunds for the application fee and compensation for the issues she faced during her tenancy.

How did the tenancy start, and when did it end?

The tenancy, in this case, has a somewhat complex history, which I will outline based on the information provided during the hearing: Initial Occupation (June 2023): a. [The tenant/s] began living at the property on 20 June 2023, but she was not formally on the tenancy agreement at that time. She was paying rent to [Previous tenant], the tenant who was on the agreement at the time. [The tenant/s] described this arrangement as a flatmate situation, where she lived in the house and paid rent to [Previous tenant], who was responsible for the entire premises. [Previous tenant] was the tenant under Rentex, the property management company at the time. Formal Tenancy Agreement (February 2024): b. [The tenant/s] was formally added to the tenancy agreement on 15 February 2024, after [Previous tenant] stopped paying rent and was removed from the property. From this date, [The tenant/s] became the tenant directly under the landlord, Du Val GP Trustees Ltd. The tenancy agreement was periodic. End of Tenancy (December 2024): c. [The tenant/s] vacated the property on 7 December 2024. She claims that she was given a termination notice to vacate the property, which she alleges was retaliatory and issued immediately after a mediation phone call regarding the property's condition. However, she ended up leaving earlier, giving two weeks' notice once she found alternative accommodation.
In summary: a. Start of Occupation: 20 June 2023 (as a flatmate, not on the tenancy agreement). b. Start of Formal Tenancy: 15 February 2024 (added to the tenancy agreement). c. End of Tenancy: 7 December 2024 ([The tenant/s] vacated the property)

What was the bond arrangement before the hearing?

The bond arrangement between [The tenant/s] and the landlord, Du Val GP Trustees Ltd, was discussed during the hearing. The key details are: a. The total bond amount was $3,200. The Bond Centre held this amount in trust. b. [The tenant/s] and Ms Shi reached an agreement regarding the bond refund. According to [The tenant/s], the landlord agreed to refund $2,570 out of the bond's $3,200. The landlord kept the difference, which was $630. This retention was allegedly for cleaning and maintenance costs, though [The tenant/s] disputed this, stating that she was told not to clean the property upon vacating. c. [The tenant/s] confirmed that both parties had signed the bond refund form, but she had not received the refund at the time of the hearing. She mentioned that she had provided the Bond Centre with her bank account details and was waiting for the refund to be processed.
Since both parties had reached an agreement on the bond refund, I indicated that I would not disturb the bond arrangement already made.
In summary, the bond arrangement was as follows: a. Total Bond: $3,200 b. Agreed Refund to [The tenant/s]: $2,570 c. Retained by Landlord: $630.
The bond refund process was underway, but at the time of the hearing, the funds had not yet been transferred to [The tenant/s]. Why did I decline to hear the abovementioned topics under paragraphs 3(d) and (e)?
I declined to hear the disputes under the topics of "taking border's money" and "breach of quiet enjoyment" for the following reasons: Taking Border's Money: a. Unlawful Residential Premises: Based on the evidence and descriptions provided during the hearing, it appeared that the workshop/unit where the flatmates were living was likely unlawful residential premises. The workshop/unit was described as a metal structure without proper insulation or compliance with residential standards. This raised significant concerns about whether the premises were fit for habitation. b. Lack of Standing: Neither [The tenant/s] nor Ms Shi had the legal standing to claim or dispute the rent payments from the flatmates. The individuals who lived in the workshop/unit ([Names redacted] – names may not be correct) were the ones who should have raised any claims regarding the conditions or the legality of their living arrangements. Since they were not present in the hearing, and one of them had passed away, it was inappropriate for me to adjudicate on this matter. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment: c. Squatters and Unauthorised Occupants: The woman ([Name redacted]) and her child who moved into the barn were described as squatters who had entered the property without [The tenant/s]'s consent. While this caused significant disruption to [The tenant/s]'s quiet enjoyment, the situation was complicated because Ms Shi later signed [Redacted] up as a flatmate despite the unlawful nature of her occupancy. d. [The tenant/s]'s Role in the Situation: [The tenant/s] admitted that she accepted $50 per week from Ms Shi. This indicated that [The tenant/s] had, to some extent, participated in the arrangement by consent, even if reluctantly. This made it difficult to fully uphold her claim of a breach of quiet enjoyment, as she had accepted the situation for a financial reward. e. Legal Complexity: The issue of quiet enjoyment was intertwined with the unlawful occupancy of the barn, which was not a lawful residential premises. If [Redacted] wished to pursue claims regarding her living conditions, she must file a separate application.
I declined to hear these issues because they involved third parties (the flatmates and [Redacted]) who were not part of the current hearing and because the premises in question (the workshop/unit and barn) appeared to be unlawful residential premises. Additionally, [The tenant/s]'s acceptance of payments from Ms Shi weakened her claim regarding the breach of quiet enjoyment.
I will now turn to the claims from paragraphs 3(a) to (c). Non-compliance with Healthy Home Standards
Both [The tenant/s] and Ms Shi presented their respective cases during the hearing. Below is a summary of each party's position: [The tenant/s]’s claim
[The tenant/s] claimed that the property did not comply with the Healthy Home Standards, particularly in the following areas:
Insulation and Ventilation: a. She stated that "[t]he house was really cold all the time, especially throughout winter. Even with the fire and the heat pump going, it wasn't enough heat." She argued that the lack of proper insulation contributed to the cold conditions. b. She also claimed that the house had black mould, which affected her health and damaged her belongings, including mattresses, clothes, and shoes. She attributed the mould to poor ventilation and insulation.
Health Issues: a. [The tenant/s] reported that the mould caused breathing issues for her and her family, particularly because her bedroom was located near the bathroom, which she claimed was a source of dampness and mould.
Healthy Home Standards Report: a. She referenced a Healthy Home Standards report dated 15 January 2024, which her flatmate, [Previous tenant], commissioned. The report identified non-compliance issues, including inadequate insulation and kitchen ventilation, that were not compliant with the standards.
Landlord's Awareness: a. [The tenant/s] claimed that she had informed the landlord and property managers (Rentex and later Aspire Property Management) about the issues during house inspections. She stated that nothing was done to address the problems. Ms Shi’s reply
Landlord's Lack of Awareness: a. Ms Shi argued that the landlord was not aware of the Healthy Home Standards issues until October 2024, when she received the Healthy Home Standards report. She claimed that [The tenant/s] had not formally notified the landlord of the issues earlier, as required under the tenancy laws (e.g., a 14-day notice for repairs).
Insulation in Place: a. Ms Shi submitted a photo showing insulation material in the ceiling, which she claimed had been there for over a year. She argued that the insulation was present but that the Healthy Home Standards report might not have been updated to reflect this.
Tenant's Living Habits: a. Ms Shi suggested that the mould and dampness issues were partly due to [The tenant/s]'s living habits. She claimed that [The tenant/s] kept the windows and curtains closed, preventing proper ventilation and sunlight from entering the house. She also stated that she had advised [The tenant/s] to open the windows and let sunlight in to reduce mould.
Opportunity to Leave: a. Ms Shi argued that [The tenant/s] had long been aware of the property's condition and had chosen to stay despite the issues. She claimed that she had encouraged [The tenant/s] to find alternative accommodation if the property was unsuitable, but she had chosen to remain.
Repairs After Vacating: a. Ms Shi mentioned that after [The tenant/s] vacated the property in December 2024, she discovered a hole in the ceiling. It had been repaired. She claimed that this repair work showed that insulation was present and that the property was being maintained.

Did Insulation comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, 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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The evidence (a Healthy Homes Standards Compliance Report by Landlord Solution Ltd dated 15 January 2024 and Ms Shi’s photo of a hole in the ceiling) before me satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to meet the minimum insulation standards as required by the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
I do not accept Ms. Shi’s argument that [The tenant/s] was aware of the issues and chose to remain. Her arguments on this point are concerning because she blamed her tenant for failing to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

Did Kitchen Ventilation Comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply 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 2024.
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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
In this case, I have determined that the breach relates to kitchen ventilation. The landlord had 120 days to comply with the standards after the tenancy commenced on 15 February 2024. In other words, the landlord had until 13 June 2024 to comply with the standards. But the landlord did not. The premises were not compliant with the ventilation standards between 13 June 2024 and 7 December 2024, or 5 months and 25 days.
Accordingly, I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
I consider small compensation justified for failing to comply with insulation standards due to the apparent lack of adequate ceiling insulation and absence of underfloor insulation. The winter months in New Zealand are from June to August 2024. [The tenant/s] is awarded $100 monthly compensation between June and August 2024, totalling $300. I find this amount appropriate, as [The tenant/s] has not provided any evidence to substantiate her claims that her health was adversely affected by insufficient insulation or that her items were damaged due to this inadequate insulation.
I do not consider compensation for kitchen ventilation warranted because the non-compliance was less serious. There is no evidence before me that [The tenant/s] was affected by inadequate kitchen ventilation. Failure to Maintain the Property
In relation to the Failure to Maintain the Property claim, both [The tenant/s] and Ms Shi presented their respective cases during the hearing. Below is a summary of each party's position: [The tenant/s] claim
[The tenant/s] raised several maintenance issues that the landlord did not address during her tenancy. Her key points included:
Leaking Roof: a. She reported a leak in her daughter's bedroom during house inspections conducted by Rentex and later Aspire Property Management (both are property managers). Despite her notifications, no repairs were made.
Non-Functional Dishwasher: a. [The tenant/s] said the dishwasher had been leaking through the pipes into the sink since around July 2023 (when she was living with [Previous tenant] as a flatmate). She stopped using it and claimed it was never repaired.
Improperly Installed Carpet: a. She argued that the carpet was not installed properly, with edges coming loose and causing her family to cut their feet on the exposed staples or tacks.
Windows Without Latches: a. [The tenant/s] mentioned that one window did not have latches and could not shut properly. To secure it, she had to tape it shut from the outside.
Doors That Could Not Be Locked: a. She claimed that none of the doors in the house, except the front door, could be locked. This included sliding doors with broken latches and bolts, which she had to secure with pieces of wood.
Kitchen Door Without a Handle: a. [The tenant/s] stated that the kitchen door leading outside did not have a handle on either side, making it difficult to open or close. She had to jam it shut with a tea towel.
General Lack of Repairs: a. She argued that no repairs were carried out despite reporting these issues to the property managers (Rentex and Aspire Property Management) and later to Ms Shi. She provided text messages as evidence of her communications with Ms Shi about the maintenance issues. Ms Shi's reply
Ms Shi disputed [The tenant/s] claims and provided the following responses:
Leaking Roof: a. Ms Shi argued that there was no evidence of a leak in the roof. She stated that after [The tenant/s] vacated the property, she had a builder inspect the roof and found no leaks. She suggested that any water issues might have been caused by [The tenant/s] use of the property.
Dishwasher: a. Ms Shi acknowledged that the dishwasher was "as is" when [The tenant/s] moved in and claimed that [The tenant/s] had not formally requested repairs. She also stated that the dishwasher was not essential for habitability and that [The tenant/s] had chosen not to use it.
Carpet Installation: a. Ms Shi did not directly address the carpet issue but implied that the property was rented in its existing condition, and [The tenant/s] accepted it.
Windows and Doors: a. Ms Shi claimed that the windows had ledges and were secure, as required for child safety around the swimming pool. She also argued that the sliding doors could be secured with a timber bar, which she demonstrated with photos. She stated that [The tenant/s] had not raised these issues formally during her tenancy.
Kitchen Door: a. Ms Shi admitted that the kitchen door did not have a handle but claimed that [The tenant/s] had temporarily fixed it herself without providing measurements for a replacement handle. She argued that the door was not a priority issue and that [The tenant/s] had not followed up on her request for measurements.
General Maintenance: a. Ms Shi argued that [The tenant/s] had not issued formal 14-day notices for repairs, as required under tenancy laws. She also claimed that [The tenant/s] had chosen to stay in the property despite the issues and had not taken steps to address them earlier.
Key Points of Contention: a. Leaking Roof: [The tenant/s] claimed there was a leak, while Ms Shi argued that after inspection, there was no evidence of a leak. b. Dishwasher: [The tenant/s] said it was broken and leaking, while Ms Shi argued it was rented "as is" and not essential. c. Carpet: [The tenant/s] claimed it was improperly installed and hazardous, while Ms Shi did not directly address this issue. d. Windows and Doors: [The tenant/s] argued they were insecure, while Ms Shi claimed they were functional and secure with additional measures (e.g., timber bars). e. Formal Notices: Ms Shi argued that [The tenant/s] did not issue formal 14- day notices for repairs, while [The tenant/s] claimed she had reported the issues during inspections and via text messages. My view
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
During the hearing, I reminded [The tenant/s] the burden is on her to prove her claims on the balance of probabilities. I noted that [The tenant/s] did not issue 14-day notice to remedy but many of her complaints were noted in a text message to Ms Shi on 2 August 2024. The text message states: “The house isn’t healthy home standard, it’s for all black mould, the doors don’t lock, the pool doesn’t go, the fencings is broken so you can’t use the yard, the roofs leaking the dishwasher doesn’t go plus plenty more...”
[The tenant/s] is responsible for notifying the landlord as soon as possible after discovering any damage to the premises or of the need for any repairs. See section 40(1)(d) RTA. There is no specific legal requirement under section 40(a)(d) RTA that [The tenant/s] must issue a 14-day notice to remedy under section 56 (1)(b) RTA provided [The tenant/s] “notified” Ms Shi. In the present case, [The tenant/s] did notify Ms Shi of her complaints on 2 August 2024 via a text message.
However, [The tenant/s] is still required to discharge the burden of proof that her complaints have been substantiated. The evidence she has submitted only supports the following claims: a. The kitchen door had no handle, and she had to jam it shut with a tea towel. b. One of the sliding doors needed to be secured with a timber bar. c. The carpet was not installed properly (limited to an area, not the entire house).
In her evidence, Ms Shi confirmed that the dishwasher was broken and leaking. She said it was rented "as is" and not essential.
I do not accept Ms Shi’s submissions that because the dishwasher was rented “as is” and not essential the landlord therefore did not have the responsibility to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. This is because Section 45(3) RTA states the landlord’s responsibilities under subsections (1) to (1AAB) “... shall apply notwithstanding that the tenant has notice of the state of the premises at the time at which the tenancy agreement is entered into. In any event, [The tenant/s] notified Ms Shi via a text message on 2 August 2024 that “... dishwasher doesn’t go...”
I am once again deeply troubled by Ms. Shi’s assertions that [The tenant/s] was responsible for her complaints. The recurring theme throughout her submissions revolves around [The tenant/s] failure to report the matters to her or her choice to remain on the premises.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
In my view, the landlord has failed to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair in relation to: a. The kitchen door did not have a handle; b. One of the sliding doors could only be secured with a timber bar. c. The carpet was not installed properly (limited to an area, not the entire house d. The dishwasher was not functional.
Accordingly, I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
[The tenant/s] was not specific about the compensation in her submissions. However, she had the tenancy between 15 February 2024 and 7 December 2024 or 9 months and 23 days. Inconvenience to [The tenant/s] and safety concerns to her and her children are common sense.
I consider compensation for $500 is appropriate.
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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that the breach is intentional. The landlord is responsible for complying with Healthy Homes Standards and maintaining the property in a reasonable state of repair.
I do not accept Ms. Shi’s argument that [The tenant/s] decision to continue renting the premises would lessen the seriousness of the breach. I also do not accept her submission that [The tenant/s] was at fault for failing to bring the maintenance issues to her attention.
I consider exemplary damage for $500 appropriate. Retaliatory notice
In relation to the Retaliatory Notice claim, both [The tenant/s] and Ms Shi presented their respective cases during the hearing. Below is a summary of each party's position: [The tenant/s] Claim
[The tenant/s] claimed that the termination notice to vacate the property was retaliatory and issued in response to her complaints about the property's condition. Her key points included:
Timing of the Notice: a. She stated that the notice was issued an hour after a mediation phone call on 8 October 2024, during which she raised issues about the property's failure to comply with Healthy Home Standards and other maintenance problems. She argued that the timing of the notice was not coincidental and was directly linked to her complaints. [The tenant/s] said in her evidence: "We had a mediation phone call, and an hour after hanging up on that phone call, I was given 90 days notice to vacate."
Grounds for the Notice: a. [The tenant/s] said that the notice cited two reasons: i. The property failed Healthy Home Standards. ii. The owner intended to move into the property. b. She disputed both grounds, arguing that the owner did not move into the property after she vacated and that the property was re-rented to other tenants.
Pressure to Leave: a. [The tenant/s] alleged that after receiving the notice, Ms Shi repeatedly pressured her to leave immediately through emails and text messages, even though the notice allowed her 90 days to vacate. She claimed this added to the stress of finding new accommodation.
Early Vacating: a. [The tenant/s] stated that she eventually gave two weeks' notice to vacate the property after finding alternative accommodation. She argued that this was done under duress due to the pressure from Ms Shi and the ongoing issues with the property. Ms Shi's Reply
Ms Shi disputed [The tenant/s] claims and provided the following responses:
Timing of the Notice: a. Ms Shi acknowledged that the notice was issued on 8 October 2024 but argued that it was not retaliatory. She stated that the notice was initially a 63-day notice issued on 3 October 2024, based on the landlord's intention to move into the property under section 51(1)(a) RTA. However, after receiving the Healthy Homes Standards report on 8 October 2024, she extended the notice to 90 days to allow [The tenant/s] more time to find alternative accommodation.
Grounds for the Notice: a. Ms Shi confirmed that the notice cited the property's failure to meet Healthy Home Standards and the landlord's intention to move in. She argued that these were legitimate reasons for issuing the notice and not retaliatory.
Landlord's Financial Situation: a. Ms Shi explained that the landlord was facing severe financial difficulties, including unpaid rates and mortgage arrears. She claimed that the landlord intended to move into the property to reduce costs but later decided to rent it out again due to financial constraints.
[The tenant/s] Decision to Leave: a. Ms Shi argued that [The tenant/s] chose to leave voluntarily and gave two weeks' notice to vacate the property, which was unrelated to the 90-day notice. She stated that [The tenant/s] had been looking for alternative accommodation since August 2024 and had already decided to move out.
No Retaliation: a. Ms Shi denied that the notice was retaliatory and emphasised that she had acted in good faith, extending the notice period from 63 to 90 days to accommodate [The tenant/s] situation. She also stated that she had provided [The tenant/s] with references to help her find new accommodation.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. My view
During the hearing, [The tenant/s] was unable to provide concrete evidence to prove that the landlord did not move into the property after she vacated. However, Ms Shi admitted that the landlord did not move into the property after [The tenant/s] left. Ms Shi explained that the landlord had initially intended to move in due to financial difficulties, such as unpaid rates and mortgage arrears, but later decided to rent the property again to generate income. Ms Shi stated that the property was rented to flatmates after [The tenant/s] vacated.
Ms Shi's explanation of the landlord's initial intention to move into the property due to financial difficulties contradicts her subsequent statement that the landlord decided to rent the property to "flatmates" to generate income. This inconsistency raises questions about the genuineness of the landlord's original intention to move in, which was one of the grounds for the 63-day termination notice under section 51(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
In relation to the landlord's initial intention to move into the property, Ms Shi stated: “The landlord was thinking about coming back to the country... they are actually intending to take the possession, but because I have to be diplomatic to keep her [The tenant/s] happy as well... I'm the one trying to do as much diplomatic as possible, just say as Cantonese as possible."
Regarding the change of plan, Ms Shi explained: "The landlord instead of renting elsewhere, they better move in and accept the condition themselves. So I thought [it] was the best solution overall... but they need the money because as I told you, they owe so much rates, so much mortgage so..."
The contradiction arises because Ms Shi initially claimed that the landlord intended to move into the property to reduce costs, but then stated that, due to financial constraints, they decided to rent it out again to generate income. This suggests that the landlord's plans changed, but it also raises questions about the genuineness of the original intention to move in, which was one of the grounds for the termination notice.
Ms Shi's explanations were contradictory and did not make logical sense. If financial issues were the reason the landlord planned to take possession of the property, it would have been more financially prudent for [The tenant/s] to continue the tenancy. Instead, the landlord did not move in, and the property was rented to "flatmates." The landlord’s financial position remained unchanged, except that [The tenant/s] was no longer the tenant.
The timing of the termination notice is notable, whether it was on 3 October 2024 before the mediation phone call or on 8 October 2024, as [The tenant/s] stated that it came within an hour after the mediation phone call ended. Ms Shi did not dispute this timing, which supports her claim that the notice was retaliatory.
Based on the facts, I conclude that the termination notice issued on 8 October 2024 was retaliatory. [The tenant/s] had proposed to exercise her rights, powers, and remedies under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 against the landlord, and the notice was issued in response to her complaints. I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Issuing a retaliatory notice is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See Schedule 1A, section 54(3).
If a party has intentionally committed an unlawful act, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is of the view it would be just to do so, considering the party’s intent, the consequences of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. Refer to section 109(3) RTA.
Having regard to all relevant factors, I find it just to award exemplary damages, albeit a moderate amount. [The tenant/s] vacated the premises after the termination notice was issued and after Ms Shi repeatedly pressured her to do so. Although she ultimately gave a two-week notice to vacate, this was not voluntary, as Ms Shi claimed. [The tenant/s] complaints about the landlord’s breaches of their obligations under the RTA were largely proven, and she was exercising her legal rights.
There is a strong public interest in deterring landlords from terminating tenancies when tenants assert their rights or lodge complaints. To uphold this principle, I award exemplary damages for $1,000.00. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claims, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claims, I have ordered the name to be suppressed.
However, I am not inclined to extend the suppression to the property's address because it was not compliant with Healthy Homes standards at the time, was not maintained to a satisfactory level, and the barn and workshop/unit on the property may not be lawful residential premises.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4983788 — Healthy homes at 349 Postman Road, Dairy Flat, RD 4, Dairy Flat 0794

Tenancy Tribunal case 4983788 — Healthy homes at 349 Postman Road, Dairy Flat, RD 4, Dairy Flat 0794

Order

Reasons

How did the tenancy start, and when did it end?

What was the bond arrangement before the hearing?

Did Insulation comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

Did Kitchen Ventilation Comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

Order

Reasons

How did the tenancy start, and when did it end?

What was the bond arrangement before the hearing?

Did Insulation comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

Did Kitchen Ventilation Comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?