What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5062068 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5062068?

Compensation: Failure to maintain fl…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5062068?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5062068?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12034050-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5062068 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5062068?

Compensation: Failure to maintain fl…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5062068?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5062068?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12034050-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

15a Sunnynook, Forest hill, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5062068 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5062068 — net $1,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain flooring	$1,000.00	Failure to maintain flooring
Reimbursement of filing fee	$27.00	Reimbursement of filing fee
Net award	$1,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,027.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5062068 — net $1,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain flooring	$1,000.00	Failure to maintain flooring
Reimbursement of filing fee	$27.00	Reimbursement of filing fee
Net award	$1,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,027.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Renthub Limited As Agent For Hend Farah must pay [The tenant/s] $1,027.00 immediately, as set out below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by a property manager from Renthub Limited. The tenancy
This tenancy was the tenant’s first tenancy in New Zealand. [The tenant] moved to New Zealand from Egypt in February 2023. His wife and three children followed in August 2023.
The tenancy commenced on 21 August 2023 and ended on 25 August 2024. The premises is a two-storey, four-bedroom home, built on an unknown date prior to 2008.
The current owner purchased the property in 2021. The owner was residing in the property until this tenancy commenced.
The tenants lived in the property with their three children, all teenagers during the tenancy. For the last 6 – 8 weeks of the tenancy, [the tenant’s] mother, aged in her 70s, lived at the premises with the family. The tenant’s claims
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 in the following ways: a. Failure to maintain the flooring in the living room; b. Failure to meet the Healthy Home Standards as regards: i. Insulation; and ii. Ground moisture barrier.
The tenant says the failure to meet Healthy Homes Standards contributed to the condensation and mould problems they experienced in the home.
The tenant also says the landlord unlawfully delayed the release of the bond at the end of the tenancy. The tenancy ended on 25 August 2024. The bond was released to the tenant (less an agreed amount for a water bill) on 5 November 2024.
The landlord acknowledges that the flooring in the living room was faulty and was not repaired during the tenancy. While acknowledging the landlord failed to maintain the flooring, the landlord says they have made no offer of compensation to the tenant and instead wish the Tribunal determine the appropriate compensation.
In respect of the claims regarding the Healthy Home Standards (HHS), the landlord denies the tenant’s claims and relies on a HHS assessment report carried out by a third-party dated 6 July 2023 which states the premises was HHS compliant (or exempt) in respect of both insulation and ground moisture barrier.
The landlord acknowledges the bond was not returned to the tenants promptly, but again says they leave it to the Tribunal to determine whether any exemplary damages or compensation is appropriate. Burden and standard of proof
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction 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. Types of awards the Tribunal can make
In their application, the tenant indicates they seek: a. Compensation of $16,000 in relation to the flooring in the living room; b. Exemplary damages for unlawful acts relating to HHS; and c. Exemplary damages for the unjustified delay in return of the bond.
While I discussed these different types of claims at the hearing, it is helpful to set out the different types of claims the Tribunal may make here.

COMPENSATION

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to order general damages (see Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667).
The Tribunal in Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) held that when assessing the quantum of general damages, the Tribunal must take into account the following factors: a. The nature of the breach; b. The duration of the breach; and c. The effect of the breach on the party.
The Tribunal’s general damages awards have historically been low. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing (supra) R E Neave DCJ described the Tribunal’s awards for emotional harm damages as “not particularly generous” and “fairly conservative.”
With reference to Otautahi, in the Tribunal decision Penfold-Ulrich & Iu v Parklane Real Estate Limited [2025] NZTT 5049208 the Tribunal set out the following bands for awards for compensation: a. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $2,000.00; b. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. c. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of over $3,000.00.

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 damages 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 of the RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA.

Should the tenant be compensated for failure to maintain the living room floor?

Under section 45 of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
The tenant says the vinyl-plank flooring in the living room was warped from the start of the tenancy. They say that, while warped, it was not an issue at the start of the tenancy (August 2023). However, after 3 – 4 months the warping became worse. They say by April 2024, the cold and damp conditions caused the floorboards to lift, creating gaps and an unstable surface.
The tenants raised the issue with the property manager by email sent 16 May 2024. The tenant attached photos that showed the flooring had lifted in places. The photos indicate the boards had become unclipped, and some of the planks were raised 1 – 2 cm above the floor level. The tenant said by June 2024, the flooring had lifted further so that it was raised up to 5cm above the floor level in an upside down “V” shape. The tenant said he could then easily remove some of the planks. This reduced the trip hazard the uneven flooring created but meant there were parts of the living room where the flooring was missing.
The tenants say despite raising the issue with the property manager again in June, nothing was does to remedy the issue and the flooring remained un-fixed when they moved out in August 2024. In total, the tenants say they were impacted by the flooring for 4 – 5 months: from April/May 2024 until the end of the tenancy in August 2024.
The tenants say the warped and damaged flooring caused significant inconvenience, stress, and strain. They say they had to move carefully around the living area to ensure they and their children did not trip.
The landlord accepts the flooring was not in a suitable state. The property manager acknowledges the issue was raised by the tenant on 16 May 2024.
The property manager says a tradesperson attended to inspect on 4 June 2024 but did not provide the landlord with a quote for repair until mid-late July 2024. The property manager says attempts were made to source the same or similar flooring, but a like-for-like replacement could not be sourced.
Ultimately, the flooring was replaced after the tenancy ended.
It is not in dispute that the landlord failed to maintain the flooring, nor that it impacted the tenant in the way that they described. The issue for me to determine is what is an appropriate amount to award to the tenant as compensation.
I take into account that the flooring impacted the tenant’s day-to-day use and enjoyment of the (only) living room in the home. While I accept that it impacted their use, I note that it did not render the living room un-usable by them. Taking into account the bands applied by the Tribunal in Penfold-Ulrich & Iu v Parklane Real Estate Limited (supra), I am satisfied the breach caused inconvenience and frustration and the appropriate amount of compensation is at the middle to upper end of the lowest band.
Accordingly, I award $1,000.00 in compensation for the landlord’s breach of s45 of the RTA. Should the tenant be awarded compensation or exemplary damages relating to breaches of Healthy Homes Standards

INSULATION

[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.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants say their current rental property does not have the condensation and mould issues they experienced in the premises and say that it evidence the insulation at the premises was inadequate. The tenants confirmed they were not able to access the ceiling cavity (the landlord says there is no cavity). The tenants say they were able to access under the house but did not do so to inspect the underfloor insulation.
The landlord says the property is exempted from the requirement to have ceiling insulation as it has cathedral ceilings, meaning there is no cavity in the ceiling in which to install insulation. The landlord notes the exemption is recorded in the HHS assessment report carried out by a third-party dated 6 July 2023 (the 2023 HHS Report).
The landlord says the 2023 HHS Report also records that the underfloor insulation is compliant. It records the underfloor insulation is in good condition and has an R-value of 1.5.
I am not satisfied the tenant has proved it is more likely than not that the landlord failed to meet the HHS requirements regarding insulation. The ceiling does not have an accessible cavity, therefore, it is not reasonably practicable to install ceiling insulation. As regards the underfloor insulation, the evidence suggests the property is compliant with the required standards.
Even if the tenant had shown the landlord had failed to meet the HHS requirements in relation to insulation, I am satisfied the landlord has proved they did not breach the HHS requirements intentionally. The landlords believed the insulation in the property was compliant, based on the 2023 HHS Report which stated the insulation was compliant (or exempt).

GROUND FLOOR MOISTURE BARRIER

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA in that there was no ground moisture barrier at the premises.
Compliance dates for the HHS requirements in relation to ground moisture barrier 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.
As the tenancy commenced on 21 August 2023, its compliance date was 19 December 2023.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that a rented premises have a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space. A property will be exempt from the requirement if it is not reasonably practicable to install a ground moisture barrier.
It is not in dispute that the premises did not have a ground moisture barrier. The landlord says they rely on the 2023 HHS Report which states the premises is exempt, “due to the sloping and uneven ground in the underfloor.”
The tenant says the property should not be exempt from the requirement. The tenant says the area under the house is easily accessed and it is therefore reasonably practicable to install a ground moisture barrier.
The tenant says at the highest point (where the access door is) the access area is approximately 1.6m tall. The tenant says the property is on a slope, but the lowest point is not so low that an tradesperson could not install a ground moisture barrier.
The landlord confirmed the area under the house is easily accessed, but slopes to the lowest point which is estimated to be approximately 0.5m tall. The landlord accepts the area is accessible, but questions whether a ground moisture barrier could be installed at the lowest point. In any event, the landlord says they believed the premises did not require a ground moisture barrier, based on the advice of the 2023 HHS Report writer.
I do not consider the property is exempt from a ground moisture barrier. The photos provided show the area under the house is easily accessible and the slope and/or uneven ground does not prevent the installation of a ground moisture barrier. It may be that a tradesperson is not able to install a ground moisture barrier at the very lowest point, but I would expect every attempt to be made to cover as much area as possible.
I have determined the landlord has committed an unlawful act as I find the premises did require a ground moisture barrier. However, before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages for an unlawful act, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA. Amongst those considerations are the intent of the party in breach.
I am satisfied the landlord did not intentionally commit the unlawful act. I am satisfied the landlord believed the premises was exempt from the requirement that it have a ground moisture barrier. However, I note that, if the premises is to be tenanted again (or if it is currently tenanted) the landlord should take immediate steps to install a ground moisture barrier.
I decline to award exemplary damages for failure to install a ground moisture barrier. Should the tenant be awarded exemplary damages or compensation for delay in refund of the bond?
The tenants say after the tenancy ended on 25 August 2024, they exited the premises and left it (more than) reasonably clean and tidy. They say an exit report was completed on 26 August 2024 which recorded the property was very clean and no issues were identified.
The tenants say they requested release of the bond. They say the landlord did not respond until 24 September 2024, and in the communications, eventually told the tenant they would not agree to the bond being released.
The tenants say the bond was eventually released, by agreement of the landlord, and the tenants received the bond (less an agreed amount for a water bill) on 5 November 2024.
The tenants say the delay in receiving the bond refund meant they had to borrow $3,920 from a friend to pay the bond on their new tenancy, which commenced on 15 August 2024.
The tenants say once the bond was refunded, they were able to pay their friend back. Their friend did not charge them interest on the loan of $3,920.
The landlord does not dispute the property was left “really clean and tidy.” The property manager says the owner had in their mind that the flooring issues in the living room may be damage caused by the tenants, for which they may seek payment from the bond. Ultimately this was abandoned by the owner.
At the hearing, I noted a delay in refund of the bond is not an unlawful act under Scheduled 1A of the RTA. Accordingly, there is no ability for the Tribunal to award exemplary damages.
I have considered whether the tenants may be entitled to compensation, however, again there is no breach of the RTA that has been identified.
I accept the delay caused the tenants frustration and inconvenience, but I do not accept the delay in refund of the bond lead to the tenants needing to borrow $3,920 for the bond on a new tenancy that commenced on 15 August 2024. That bond would have been required before the start of that tenancy, which commenced 10 days before the present tenancy ended.
Having found there is no breach of the RTA, I decline to award compensation for the delay in refund of the bond. Should the landlord reimburse the tenant’s application fee?
As the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, and on the basis this matter could have been settled by engage between the parties, the landlord must reimburse the tenant’s filing fee. Should the tenant’s identifying details be suppressed?
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/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.
The Tribunal may also, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
See s 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant applied for suppression of their name. As their application was substantially successful, the tenant is entitled to name suppression and I make the order accordingly.
At the hearing, the landlord also sought suppression of their name. The landlord says they believe both the property manager and owner did their best in managing the tenancy and responding to the tenant’s requests for maintenance.
I decline to grant the landlord name suppression for two reasons: a. The order contains directions which, if the premises is still tenanted, state that the premises should have a ground moisture barrier installed. It is therefore in the public interest that it is known to which property those directions relate; b. The landlord did not dispute the flooring issues caused the tenant inconvenience yet made no attempt to settle the matter by way of negotiation prior to the Tribunal hearing (nor at the Tribunal hearing). Given that, I consider publication is justified because of the landlord’s conduct.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5062068 — State of repair at 15a Sunnynook, Forest hill, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5062068 — State of repair at 15a Sunnynook, Forest hill, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

COMPENSATION

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

Should the tenant be compensated for failure to maintain the living room floor?

INSULATION

GROUND FLOOR MOISTURE BARRIER

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

COMPENSATION

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

Should the tenant be compensated for failure to maintain the living room floor?

INSULATION

GROUND FLOOR MOISTURE BARRIER

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions