What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5065732 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal exercises its discretion and orders suppression of the Tenants

How much money was awarded in case 5065732?

Compensation: Failure to maintain- t…: $3,585.71 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- w…: $5,742.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement for bott…: $1,450.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful premises- 40%…: $12,760.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5065732?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5065732?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11289717-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5065732 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal exercises its discretion and orders suppression of the Tenants

How much money was awarded in case 5065732?

Compensation: Failure to maintain- t…: $3,585.71 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- w…: $5,742.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement for bott…: $1,450.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful premises- 40%…: $12,760.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5065732?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5065732?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11289717-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 310 Dairy Flat Highway, Albany Heights, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5065732 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5065732 — net $30,615.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain- toilet	$3,585.71	Failure to maintain- toilet
Compensation: Failure to maintain- water	$5,742.86	Failure to maintain- water
Compensation: Reimbursement for bottled water	$1,450.00	Reimbursement for bottled water
Exemplary damages: S45(1) of the RTA breaches and HIR breaches	$4,800.00	S45(1) of the RTA breaches and HIR breaches
Compensation: Unlawful premises- 40% rent rebate for period 5/12/23 to 13/1/25	$12,760.00	Unlawful premises- 40% rent rebate for period 5/12/23 to 13/1/25
Exemplary damages: Insufficient HHS and Smoke Alarm Information in tenancy Agreement	$750.00	Insufficient HHS and Smoke Alarm Information in tenancy Agreement
Exemplary damages: Breach of Quiet Enjoyment	$1,500.00	183. I make an order for the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s38(3) of the RTA.
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$30,615.57
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$30,615.57

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5065732 — net $30,615.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain- toilet	$3,585.71	Failure to maintain- toilet
Compensation: Failure to maintain- water	$5,742.86	Failure to maintain- water
Compensation: Reimbursement for bottled water	$1,450.00	Reimbursement for bottled water
Exemplary damages: S45(1) of the RTA breaches and HIR breaches	$4,800.00	S45(1) of the RTA breaches and HIR breaches
Compensation: Unlawful premises- 40% rent rebate for period 5/12/23 to 13/1/25	$12,760.00	Unlawful premises- 40% rent rebate for period 5/12/23 to 13/1/25
Exemplary damages: Insufficient HHS and Smoke Alarm Information in tenancy Agreement	$750.00	Insufficient HHS and Smoke Alarm Information in tenancy Agreement
Exemplary damages: Breach of Quiet Enjoyment	$1,500.00	183. I make an order for the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s38(3) of the RTA.
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$30,615.57
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$30,615.57

Order

The Tribunal exercises its discretion and orders suppression of the Tenants names.
Ashton Nz Property Limited As Agent For Lingzhi Yuan & Leiyang Shen must pay [The tenants] $30,615.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenants] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 10 January 2025.
The tenants applied for compensation and exemplary damages for: a. Breaches of s45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947; and b. Failure to provide healthy homes and smoke alarm information in the tenancy agreement; and c. Breaches of their quiet enjoyment.
The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b) and (bb) obligations to the tenant?

The tenants say the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) of the RTA obligations to him.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires the landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment as far as they apply to the premises.
Breaching any of these s45(1) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain
The tenants say the landlord has failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. Hot water
The tenants say there was no hot water for the first 4 weeks of the tenancy and they called Mark, the previous property manager, about this issue and many other issues they had discovered with the premise when the tenancy started, and no rent relief was requested or offered.
The landlord provided proof the leak in the hot water cylinder was fixed on 8 December 2023, but the tenants confirmed the kitchen still had no hot water to it.
The tenants say they had to boil bottled water to cook with and they took water from the laundry to the kitchen for the dishes, as the dishwasher did not work either.
The landlord says it has no evidence of any further plumbing work being invoiced for the kitchen hot water issue and denies that there was any ongoing issue after the 8 December 2023 repair.
The tenants do not have any written evidence to prove the issue persisted after 8 December 2023 and there is no invoice for any further plumbing work being undertaken.
The tenants have failed to produce enough evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities they were without hot water for longer than 8 December 2023 and the landlord has disproved the claim by producing an invoice that prima facie proves the issue was remedied in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances.
I dismiss this claim for lack of proof to support it on the balance of probabilities. Toilets
The tenants say the toilets blocked on 14 April 2024, overflowed, and flooded two areas next to the bathroom and the bathroom with raw sewage. The tenants say they tried to call and text the property manager that day but go no reply. They produced a follow up text message they sent to the property manager on 4 May 2023 regarding the overflowing toilet not working, having soaked the carpet, and damaging their personal belongings.
The property manager replied on 4 May 2024, asking for photographs of the damage and asked the tenants to rip up the sewage-soaked carpet and to dispose of it and clean the flooring.
The tenants refused to rip up the sewage-soaked carpet as it was the raw sewage that posed a health risk.
Ou of the desperation of having no toilet since 14 April 2024, the tenants rang Ocean Plumbing at 8:30am on 4 May 2024, as they had been used by the landlord before. Ocean Plumbing and sent someone out to clear the blocked sewage line. However, the line blocked back up again as soon as the toilet was used and overflowed again, so the tenants contacted the property manager again.
The property manager says it also called Drainage Ninja on 4 May 2024 and they did CCTV ion the sewage line and found grout in the pipes and that the pipes were too small, and the pipes needed to be replaced. Drainage Ninja unblocked the toilet paper that had blocked up the line on the same day but could not get the grout out. Therefore, the grout continued to cause a blockage.
On 8 May 2024 landlord had Alpha Drainage come to unblock the pipes. It supplied a quote to remedy the whole drainage issue but could not unblock the small pipes or get the grout out. They were also asked to empty the old septic tank to see if this remedied the issue.
After that, the parties confirm the landlord sent other contractors to look for other solutions to the serious issue. This included a second emptying of the septic tank.
The property manager did nothing about the fact the toilet was unusable, so the on 5 May 2024 the tenants arranged a portaloo to be delivered to the property.
The tenants say the portaloo was used from 6 May 2024 to 10 July 2024, a period of 9 weeks and two days, until the sewage issue was remedied. The landlord confirmed it paid for the portaloo directly.
On 20 June 2024, the tenants say they complained that the neighbours raw sewage was coming up their toilet and the smell was so bad the tenants could not use the bathroom at all.
The landlord sent a contractor to drain the sewage out of the tenants’ toilet and unblock the blocked pipe, but the tenants’ toilet remained unusable. The neighbours kept using their toilet, so this issue persisted.
The landlord later found out that there were major sewage pipe issues across all the three properties, and it ended up having the sewage systems replaced on 9 July 2024, including an installation of a storm water retention tank, but not a septic tank.
The tenants say the reason the repairs took so long was because the original property manager told the tenants the owners intended to demolish the properties, within 5 years, and the owners didn’t want to spend the amount of money required to fully address the sewage system issues on a house that would be demolished in a few years’ time.
The tenants say they were frustrated at the delay in having the sewage system remedied and the number of contractors that had been asked by the landlord to come and provide quotes to fix the toilet issue. The tenants engaged Drain Ninjas, come to inspect the drainage and the contractor inform the tenants there was no septic tank, all that had been installed was a grey water retention tank and the sewage was being channelled into their back yard and the neighbour’s yard. A further contractor friend of the tenants, from Devo drainage, came to give them a second opinion and after inspecting the drainage the contractor confirmed the drainage did not comply with Council regulations.
The tenants spoke to the landlord’s drainlayer about their concerns and the feedback they had from two separate drain laying expert regarding the unlawful drainage work. The landlord’s contractor told them that he was under strict instructions by the owners to meet a set budget and that meant the work could not be completed in a compliant manner. He had only done a quick remedial fix within the budget as instructed by the owners.
The landlord denied this and produced an invoice for the drainage work, that shows no septic tank was purchased but drainage work for one was undertaken. The $11,300.00 cost also proves it is more likely than not the storm water retention tank was installed and not a full septic tank big enough for three residential premises.
The tenants say the first quote, provided by Alpha Drainage, was for $25,000.00 to complete the work properly and it had confirmed to the tenants it had sent a report to the landlord saying it would be a big job and the tenants could not remain living in the premise while it was completed.
The landlord says they received two quotes from Alpha Drainage and the second quote was for $2,000 to $3,000 to replace the narrow pipes and they hoped that would fix the issue for a few years, as the owner was aware the house was sinking.
The landlord says it eventually decided to go for a solution to replace the entire sewage system, including the pump, pipe etc and that the contractors took a while to complete the work as the pipes were special and had to be ordered. They are not available at Bunnings anytime. The landlord could not prove a septic tank had been installed. On the evidence, it appears more likely than not to cut costs a grey water tank was used instead of the more costly septic tank required.
The tenants say the carpet was never lifted and the landlord sent someone to steam clean the carpet four weeks after 4 May 2024. They lived with the health risk from 14 April to around 3 June 2024, being 7 weeks.
The tenants say that after the carpet was cleaned with a wet vac the carpet still smells, and because the floors in the storage and sunroom and to the kids’ room door were soaked for so long the floorboards in those cupboards have sunken as they have rotted away.
The parties confirmed the carpet was never lifted and the underlay treated, and no bacterial treatment undertaken to an area of the house that had been soaked in raw sewage for 7 weeks.
The tenants say they have left these areas closed off and do not use them and have one door to the bathroom from these areas blocked off due to the smell and health hazards.
There have been property inspections since this cleaning was undertaken and the property manager says she cannot smell anything. The tenants say that everyone else that enters the premise can smell the sewage smell immediately and they are unsure how she cannot smell it. The evidence supports a finding that it is more likely than not that sewage-soaked carpet, underlay and floorboard that have had a normal surface wet vac clean will not have removed all the faecal coliforms and raw sewage smell in the flooring materials.
I find the tenants should have received a rent rebate for the period they have had the loss of amenity of the toilet from 4 May to 10 July 2024 (9 weeks and 4 days) and have had to live with the sewage-soaked carpet from 4 May 2024 to 10 January 2025 (35 weeks and 6 days). The tenants reasonably expected to be able to use the toilet and the storage cupboard, sunroom, and that door to the bathroom during their tenancy. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $100.00 per week for the period 4 May 2024 to 10 January 2024 (35 weeks and 6 days) that they suffered the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience related to the sewage leak. $100.00 x 35 =$3,500.00.$100.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 6 is $85.71. The rent rebate ordered is $3,585.71. Rats
The tenants say they heard the patter or rat feet on the roof all the time since the start of the tenancy. There are no fascia boards at the bottom of the house and in the kitchen and there were rat droppings inside, so the tenants set a few traps and caught three decent sized rats.
The tenants say they notified the landlord that they needed pest control. The pest control person came and found it hard to access the ceiling cavity said he would return at dusk when the rat in the ceiling cavity would be most active, but he never returned and nothing further was done.
The tenants say they first informed the landlord around 2 February 2024. The landlord says there is no record in the system of pest control ever being called and no invoice has been received by the landlord from pest control.
The tenants have a text message between themselves that discusses the rat and that they have raised this with Mark, the prior property manager.
The tenants say this was the time that Mark had a lot of issues with the property and was not coping so he may have forgotten to put the pest control request into the system.
The landlord says that if there has been no email generated by the system, the pest control company will not call the tenant to arrange for one of its contractors to come to assess the pest control needs.
The tenants say that at the time of the property inspections, they raised the issue of the rats with Renee, the second property manager. The landlord denies ever being told about the rats.
The tenants say the rat is still in residence and would like pest control to come and address the issue.
The tenants have failed to produce enough evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities they had reported the rat problem to the landlord and the landlord has disproved the claim by showing there is no invoice in its system for pest control.
I dismiss this claim for lack of proof to support it on the balance of probabilities. Dishwasher
The tenant says the dishwasher never worked, it flooded when it was first used and flooded the floor. The cabinetry around the dishwasher is chip board so has been wet and swollen for the entire tenancy.
The tenants say they reported this to Mark, the first property manager, on 2 January 2024 by phone call and they sent the photographs, and nothing was done about the dishwasher or the water damaged cabinetry.
Mark told the tenants there were so many issues with the property that the dishwasher was not a priority, so it was left and never remediated.
The current property manager says she was not aware the dishwasher was not working, this is the first time she has heard of it, and there is no record in the property management system of this issue being raised.
The tenants say that at the time of the property inspections, they raised the issue of the dishwasher, rats, smelly carpet and the water issues with Renee, the second property manager. She denies this.
I am not satisfied the tenants have proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has breached his s45(1)(b) of the RTA in relation to this specific repair and maintenance issues. The claim is dismissed. Water
The property is a rural property that has three separate households on it. Units 1 and 2 are the old original farmhouse that at some stage has been split into two separate households by a crude wall that does not meet Building or Safety standards. Unit 3, according to the Auckland Council documents provided to the Tribunal was consented in 1984 as a farm accessory building and not a residential premise.
The tenants say there are three small water tanks that provide 11,000 litres of water and that all three houses on the property share these tanks, but Unit 3 has one additional small tank that gives them another 1 to 2 days water when the three primary tanks run out.
The parties confirmed Unit 1 had two adults, Unit two has two adults and 2 children and Unit three had three adults.
The tenants claim they consistently ran out of water every 1.5 weeks and produced text messages that prove they were without water for between 24 to 48 hours each time the tanks were empty. Further, they were required to arrange to have the tanks refilled each time, to ensure a faster delivery than the landlord could have achieved, as the female tenant had a family contact in this industry that agreed to make urgent deliveries on weekends and evenings due to the untenable situation the three households were in with such low water storage capacity.
The landlord requested the tenants monitored the water and to let it know when the water was getting low. The tenants asked for the landlord to set up a system to automatically notify when the tank was low, and the landlord has never done this.
The tenants say they ran out of water within the first week as the landlord had the roof water blasted and the contractors used the tank water. The parties confirm the tank refills have been paid for by the landlords.
The tenants say they raised the water issue with the landlord constantly and asked for bigger tanks to be installed. They say the landlord looked into this request and informed them it was too pricy to install larger water tanks and it would also be a big job to get the large sized tanks out to where they needed them. The male tenant offered the assistance of his digger to assist with the installation of new water tanks as they really needed them.
The Auckland Council website recommends that a household of 4 persons, consisting of two adults and two children require access to two 32,000 litre tanks of water to ensure they have continued access to potable water and that there is sufficient water catchment time to allow for at least 50 dry days per annum.
The tenants say the quality of the water was poor and as such they had to buy bottled water to drink and cook with as the water was cloudy, tasted funny and they were constantly getting sore stomachs . They also produced photographs that show there was around 3 to 4 inches of black thick sediment in the bottom of the three water tanks.
Section 7(2)(a) of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) states “There shall be in each kitchen or kitchenette, an approved sink with a tap connected to an adequate supply of potable water”.
Section 9(2) of the HIR states “every bathroom shall contain an approved bath or shower with an adequate supply of wholesome water. Adequate means of heating water shall be provided”.
Section 2 of the HIR states that potable water means “water that (a) is safe to drink; and (b) complies with the drinking water standards. Further, section 2 of the HIR defines drinking water standards as the standards made under section 47 of the Water Services Act 2021”.
The tenants read out emails between them and the property manager about their concerns about the quality of the water needing to be addressed on 23 April 2024 and 10 May 2024. The landlord confirmed the filters on Units 1 and 2 were replaced by 15 May 2024.
The property manager confirmed at the hearing that the owner was not prepared to install sufficient water tanks for the number of people residing on the premise due to the cost and decided it was more cost effective for them to pay the delivery fees for water to be trucked to the premise every 1.5 weeks and to leave the tenants monitoring the water so they would not run out before each delivery. The tenants say that because the tanks were on the tenants’ part of the property, they had the responsibility to check the water tanks every day at least once, if not twice as the tanks ran out so quickly. The tenants are used to living on tank water and say they use the water sparingly.
The landlord proved it got a plumber out on 4 May 2024 to change the filter to the unit 3 pump but say he did not confirm to the landlord there was black sediment in the bottom of the tanks. The tenants say the plumber confirmed the black sediment to them and that the sediment level showed the tanks had not been cleaned for some time. The tenants also say the water tanks were never cleaned during the tenancy. The tenant produced photographs of sediments of about 3 to 4 inches at the bottom of the water tanks. These photographs were taken on 19 October 2024.
The landlord produced an invoice that says the pump was replaced on Unit 3 on 4 May 2024. The landlord also says the owners had a plumber changed two large filters around 10 May 2024. It didn’t solve the quality of water issues for the tenants.
I am satisfied the tenants have proven they were not provided with sufficient potable water to meet the landlord’s section 7 and 9 of the HIR obligations or the s45(1)(c) of the RTA obligations to the tenants, and that it was not reasonable in all the circumstances for the landlord to provide 11,000 litre water storage capacity to three separate households knowing that each household required far more than that amount of water.
I find the owners intentionally put the tenants to the stress and inconvenience of being without water every 1.5 weeks for up to 48 hours and to having the responsibility for monitoring the water levels daily for three households without an easy way to see the water levels. To save them the costs involved with providing these three households with adequate potable water.
I find the tenants should have received a rent rebate for the period they have had the loss of amenity of water for 24 to 48 hours each week and a half from 5 December 2023 to 10 January 2025 (57 weeks and 3 days). The tenants reasonably expected to have access to an adequate supply of potable water in exchange for the $550.00 rent they paid each week. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $100.00 per week for 57 weeks and 3 days that they suffered the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience related to the lack of potable water. $100.00 x 57 =$5,700.00.$100.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 3 is $42.86. The rent rebate ordered is $5,742.86.
In addition, the tenants have provided evidence they have incurred the cost of purchasing 3x600ml 24 packs of bottled water each week at a cost of $25 per week for the 57 weeks and 3 days. I award them compensation to reimburse them for this cost of $1,450.00.

Does the landlord owe the tenants for the cost of one water tank refill?

On Monday 2 September 2024, the tenants say they sent the landlord a text message asking them to pay the overdue water invoice and then on 16 September 2024, the tenants texted the landlord saying they had paid $275.00, including GST for the water delivery that the landlord had not paid in a timely manner. They want this money reimbursed to them.
The landlord replied to the text asking the tenants to provide it with proof of payment and it would reimburse them.
The tenants did not provide the landlord with the requested proof, and did not receive reimbursement, so they deducted the $275.00 from their rent payment paid on 5 September 2024.
The landlord says the tenants did not pay that invoice and provided proof that it had paid this invoice 7313, issued on 2 September 2024. The payment was required to be paid by 9 September 2024. The landlord has provided proof from their bank account that the invoice was paid on 30 September 2024.
The tenants were unable to produce proof of their payment of this invoice.
The tenants have not provided sufficient proof to support their claim. The claim is dismissed. Healthy Homes Standards Compliance
The tenants claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage 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 tenancy agreement commenced on 5 December 2023. As such, the landlord was required to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards from the 120th day after the tenancy commenced, being 3 April 2024.
The landlord commissioned a healthy homes assessment report, dated 12 December 2023. This report proves the premise complied all five of the healthy homes’ standards at the start of the tenancy and a certificate of compliance was issued.
The tenants confirmed they did not receive this report at the start of the tenancy and the tenancy agreement does not have all the required healthy homes standards details within it.
The tenants did not believe the rental premise met the healthy homes standards and as the tenancy agreement did not contain most of the healthy homes information it is statutorily required to contain, the tenants commissioned their own healthy homes assessment and received a report dated 6 December 2024.
The 6 December 2024 healthy homes assessment report proves the rental premises do not meet some of the healthy homes’ standards. It states the rental premise does not meet the following healthy homes standard: a. Ventilation: In bathroom the extractor fan is not ventilating outside due to an issue with the ducting that was preventing the exhaust airflow coming through the ducting pipes (the tenants say they are constantly cleaning black mould off the walls in the bathroom but have not reported this to the landlord as they assumed it was because it was an old house that had a lot of condensation issues. They have found out that is due to the gaps and insufficient heating); b. Ventilation in the lounge two is inadequate because the room does not meet the requirements for openable windows and external doors when it was converted into a habitable space because the room has two large sliding windows that do not open freely and are essentially stuck shut and they can’t be locked as the house had dropped. c. Moisture Ingress and Drainage: There is a storm water downpipe which was not connected to the drain (The landlord says this corner of the house is unit 1 and not their premise. The tenants say the building is one building that unit 1 and 2 share all the drainage for. Further the tenants say this pipe floods into their carport); Therefore, the home is not adequately protected from ground moisture as water is being discharged on to the ground next to the house. The landlord says the toilet was fixed in November 2024 and she suspects the contractor may have cut that pipe off at that time and no one was aware of this until the report was received. The toilet issue led to the tenants in unit 1 breaking the lease early along with other repair and maintenance issues; d. Heating: Inadequate heating for the size of the lounge space. The heat pump should be 3.9kW and the current heat pump is 3.7kW. The landlord says the heat pump was installed prior to the landlord’s assessment and the 3kW requirement was based on one room being able to be shut off for the second part of the lounge, which in reality cannot be shut off due to the house having sunk on one side); e. Draught stopping: In the open plan kitchen and dining room the wall to ceiling connector has a large gap because the wall to the right of the entrance appears to be sinking and there is also a gap in the sliding door letting in cold draughts due to the condition of hinges that means the latch no longer works. The landlord has provided an invoice that proves that prior to the tenancy Panda Solutions Ltd filled the unreasonable window gaps with weather stripping tape and replace one poorly fitted windows and some missing window handles. Ventilation Standard
The tenants claim that based on their Healthy Homes Assessment report the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
The ventilation standard requires that a premise must have openable windows in the living room, dining room, kitchen, and bedrooms. Kitchens and bathrooms must have externally venting extractor fans or an acceptable continuous mechanical ventilation system that are externally vented.
The landlord’s healthy homes assessment report and compliance certificate shows that when the report was done, the house met the ventilation standard. It is possible that when the tenants’ healthy homes assessment report was completed that in the twelve months between the assessments, there was a block in the bathroom extractor fan that was preventing the exhaust airflow coming through the ducting pipes. The tenants have claimed there is a large rat in the ceiling that has been resident for much of their tenancy, and it is possible it has a nest in the ducting pipe. In addition, the tenants accepted that the two large sliding windows became harder and harder to open freely to the point thy are now essentially stuck shut and they cannot be locked as the house had dropped.
I find the issues raised by the tenants relate to failure to repair and maintain the premise rather than breaches of the healthy homes’ standards.
I dismiss the tenants claim for breach of the ventilation standard and do not consider an award of compensation for a failure to repair and maintain is appropriate as these issues were not brought to the landlord’s attention until 2 days prior to the hearing. Draught stopping standard
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
The draught stopping standard requires landlords make sure the property does not have unreasonable gaps or holes in walls, ceilings, windows, skylights, floors and doors which cause noticeable draughts. All unused open fireplaces must be closed off or their chimneys must be blocked to prevent draughts.
The tenants’ healthy homes assessment report shows the premise does not currently meet the draught stopping standard as there are large gaps in some doors and windows. The premise met the standard twelve months ago when the landlord’s healthy homes assessment report was completed. Like the ventilation issues, it appears the gaps have grown over time, as the house continues to sink on its foundations, and has not been addressed by the landlord as these gaps have not been brought to its attention. In addition, the landlord produced an invoice that shows the healthy homes assessor filled all the gaps it found at the time the landlord commissioned it to ensure the premise was healthy homes compliant.
I find the issues raised by the tenants relate to failure to repair and maintain the premise rather than breaches of the healthy homes standards.
I dismiss the tenants claim for breach of the draught stopping standard and do not consider an award of compensation for a failure to repair and maintain is appropriate as these issues were not brought to the landlord’s attention until 2 days prior to the hearing. Moisture ingress and drainage standard
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The tenants’ healthy homes assessment report shows there is a storm water downpipe which wasn’t connected to the drain that the tenants say has flooded their carport since the commencement if their tenancy. The tenants’ healthy homes report shows the premise is not adequately protected from ground moisture, as water is being discharged on to the ground next to the house.
The landlord says the toilet was fixed in November 2024 and it suspects the contractor may have cut that pipe off at that time and no one was aware of this until the tenant’s healthy homes report was received.
The tenants have not been able to prove that the pipe has been like this since the start of the tenancy, and it is not likely that this pipe would not have been picked up by the landlord’s healthy homes assessor as it is a very obvious visual breach of this standard.
The tenants were not able to provide the Tribunal with sufficient evidence that the landlord’s assessor missed this breach when it conducted its healthy homes assessment. I find it more likely than not, that the pipe was cut by the contractor that repaired the neighbour’s toilet in November 2024. The tenants claim for breach of the drainage standard is dismissed. Heating standard
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
The heating standard require landlords to provide one or more fixed heaters that can directly heat the main living room. The heater(s) must be fixed (not portable) and must be at least 1.5 kW in heating capacity and meet the minimum heating capacity needed for the main living room.
The tenant’s healthy homes report records the heat pump does not have sufficient heating capacity for the living room and is positioned in the wrong part of the room to maximise the heating potential for the room.
The landlord’s report states the heat pump is in the main lounge and is of sufficient capacity to heat one part of the living room, if the double doors to the other part are closed off.
Post the landlord’s healthy homes report, the house has continued to sink to the extent the double doors between the two halves of the lounge no longer close. This means the heating capacity of the heat pump is no longer sufficient to heat the living room.
The heat pump needs to be supplemented by a wall heater to increase the heating capacity of the room to 3.9 kW.
However, I am satisfied this is another repair and maintenance issue and not a breach of the healthy homes’ standards.
I dismiss the breach of the heating standard claim accordingly and do not consider an award of compensation for a failure to repair and maintain is appropriate as these issues were not brought to the landlord’s attention until 2 days prior to the hearing. Smoke alarms- breach of TA and breach of regulations
Section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA states the landlord “shall comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A”.
The tenants claim the rental premise had only one working smoke alarm when the tenants moved in and no further alarms were installed during the tenancy.
Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) website, www.fire.org, confirms both landlords and tenants take some responsible for smoke alarms as follows: a. Smoke alarms must be installed: i. within 3 metres of each bedroom door, or in every room where a person sleeps; ii. in each level or storey of a multi-storey or multi-level home; iii. in all rental homes, boarding houses, rental caravans, and self- contained sleep-outs. b. All new smoke alarms must: i. be photoelectric; ii. have a battery life of at least eight years, or be hard-wired; iii. installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions; iv. meet international standards. c. Existing smoke alarms do not need to be replaced if they are working, and have not passed the expiry date. d. Landlords must ensure smoke alarms: i. are working at the start of each new tenancy; ii. remain in working order during the tenancy; and iii. That are not working are replaced with photoelectric smoke alarms. e. Tenants must: i. not damage, remove, or disconnect a smoke alarm; ii. replace dead batteries during the tenancy if there are older-style smoke alarms with replaceable batteries; and iii. let the landlord know if there are any problems with the smoke alarms as soon as possible.
The tenants say the house is recorded as a one-bedroom premise but they are not sure which room is supposed to be the bedroom. They confirm that they sleep in one room and the children sleep in another room and that the landlord is aware that two rooms are being used as bedrooms.
Further they confirm that the property managers have undertaken regular inspections and as such have witnessed that two rooms are being used as bedrooms. However, all parties confirm that only one smoke alarm has been installed in the premise and this is positioned within one metre of the room being used by the tenants as their bedroom.
The tenants say the children’s bedroom is at least six metres away from the smoke alarm and that there is a room between the parents’ bedroom and the children’s bedroom.
The property manager has confirmed that the one smoke alarm was tested on 4 December 2023 and that it expires in 2031. She had no explanation for why this information was not in the tenancy agreement, except there was a rush to get the tenancy agreement drafted and signed before the tenancy commenced and that the remedial work had only just been completed and she was waiting on the information required to complete the tenancy agreement.
I am satisfied that the tenants have proven that the landlord failed to ensure the rental premises were fitted with sufficient numbers of working smoke alarms that meet the regulatory requirements referred to in the RTA.
Breaching any of the landlord’s s45 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.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants.
In order to award exemplary damages, the Tribunal has to be satisfied that the landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally, and it would be just to award exemplary damages, 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.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. the landlord failed to provide sufficient numbers of smoke alarms in every room where a person sleeps and subjected the tenants and their children to a level of risk that could have cost them their lives; b. the tenants were subjected to a level of risk that could have cost them their lives and should have been able to rely on the landlord to meet its obligations under the RTA and associated regulations; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and risk to their health and wellbeing; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to provide smoke alarms to tenants for every room a person sleeps in and to record details about these accurately in a written tenancy agreement.
A maximum of $7,200.00 exemplary damages, as set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA is for all s45 of the RTA breaches and as such, the quantum ordered under this section will be set out at the end of the s45 breach section of this order. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed two intentional breaches of s45(1)(b) of the RTA and two of the HIR and one of s45(1)(c). These breaches were prolonged and resulted in the tenants and their family living in cold, damp and potentially mouldy conditions without adequate potable water or access to proper toilet facilities and they experienced considerable periods of stress, inconvenience, and loss of the amenities they are paying rent to enjoy. The landlord did not offer any rent relief or to contribute to additional bottled water usage.
I find the landlord has committed these 5 unlawful acts intentionally and compounded those breaches by, not only failing to offer the tenants a rent rebate for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity of having to monitor and manage water supplies for three households and to co-ordinate quick tank water deliveries as well as putting them to the cost of buying bottled water.
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.
I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenant many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $4,800.00 exemplary damages to the tenants, being two thirds of the maximum penalty available for s45(1) of the RTA breaches. Did the landlord provide the tenant with healthy homes standards information in the tenancy agreement?
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 13A(1CA) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement commenced on 5 December 2023, and was legally required to contain healthy homes statements on all five of the healthy homes standards, being insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, draught stopping and heating and it also was required to provide smoke alarm numbers, where they are located, when they were last tested and date they are due for replacement. The tenants’ tenancy agreement did not contain any of this information, except the general statement agreeing to comply with the healthy homes standards and an insulation statement.
The landlord says it did not provide this information as remedial work was being carried out up to the date the tenancy started, and the landlord was waiting for the healthy homes assessment report and compliance certificate so it could attach the report to the tenancy agreement.
The tenants confirm they never received the healthy homes assessment report or compliance certificate until after the mediation that relates to this proceeding.
The tenancy agreement also fails to record when the smoke alarm was last tested, what type of alarm it is and when the smoke alarm’s expiry date is. The landlord says its tests the alarm annually, but accepts that this information was not recorded in the tenancy agreement and it should have been.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements, prescribed by sections 13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in the nature of $750.00 of exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available), because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known it had to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and Smoke Alarm Regulations and intentionally did not. The evidence the landlord intentionally omitted to ensure the tenants had this information even though it had a healthy homes assessment completed on 12 December 2023 and a smoke alarm assessment done on 4 December 2023 and could have added this information to the tenancy agreement when the information was received and did not; b. The impact on the tenants of the landlord not providing this information is that they took on the tenancy for a premise not knowing if it complied with the Smoke Alarm Regulations and HHS and were unable to review the assessment report and inform the landlord what they considered was incorrect in the report and ask for it to be rechecked by another provider. The tenants may not have taken the tenancy if they had known the premise did not fully comply with the healthy homes’ standards or the smoke alarm regulations, but was denied that opportunity; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide signed proof to the tenants that the rental premises meet all the healthy homes standards and the smoke alarm regulations; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide signed healthy homes standards statements that meet the requirements set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and the smoke alarm regulations.

Are the premises unlawful residential premises?

The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises. See section 77(2)(ac) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
The tenant claimed that the premises are unlawful residential premises as he had no separate address, letter box or rubbish bins for his unit. The tenant produced the Auckland Council rating records and geo map showing the entire property as one address.
The tenants say there are three rubbish bins and three recycling bins provided by the Council for the three residences but only one set of these has markings from the Council. The landlord has given evidence that none of the bins have been provided by private rubbish collection companies.
The tenants say there is three separate power meters.
Both parties produced evidence that shows Units 1 and 2 were an old homestead that has been converted to two units by a false wall in the middle. The tenants say they have had the thin dividing wall assessed and it does not include a fire wall between Units 1 & 2.
The landlord has provided Council documents that show unit 3 was consented in 1984 as a farm accessory building and not a residential property, but say when the current owner purchased the property, on 17 November 2017, it was sold with all three premises already tenanted with residential tenants that had been in residence for around 10 years.
The landlord confirmed that it had not been made aware during the sale and purchase process that the three units were not lawfully allowed to be used as residential premises and did not make any such enquiries as the dwelling was tenanted when she had looked to purchase the property.
The property manager, also stated that she was not made aware by the owners the three units were not able to be lawfully rented out.
The documents provided to the Tribunal confirmed the owner’s lawyers did order a Land Information Memorandum (LIM) as part of the sale and purchase process. LIM’s are comprehensive reports that have all relevant information the Council knows about a property or section, including any consents, notices, orders or requisitions affecting the land or buildings and classifications on the land or buildings notified to the Council by network utility operators in relation to the Building Act 2004. It is unlikely that the landlord did not know that the premise rented to the tenants was not consented as a residential dwelling.
A landlord is obliged to take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes (section 36 RTA).
The Council documents record that the premises were of an age that none of them required a code of compliance as they were built before the Building Act 2004 was enacted. However, all building work in New Zealand must meet the performance standards set by the Building Code, even if it does not need a consent.
The Building Code sets clear expectations of the standards buildings should meet. It covers: a. structural stability; b. fire safety; c. access; d. moisture control; e. durability; f. services and facilities; and g. energy efficiency.
The Building Code states how a building must perform in its intended use, rather than describing how the building must be designed and constructed.
The tenants have proven that Unit 1 & 2 no longer meet the Building Code as they have been divided in such a way that they breach the fire safety part of the Building Code and more likely than not also fail to meet other standards set out in the Building Code. The landlord has provided evidence to the Tribunal that also proves Unit 3 was never consented as a residential dwelling. It was consented as a farm accessory building.
The landlord has never sought a certificate of acceptance for the three units that would give any current or future tenant assurance the premise met the required parts of the Building Code.
I am satisfied that the tenants have proven that more likely than not the premise they rent is an unlawful residential premise and that on the balance of probabilities the landlord knew this, but decided to rent all three units out to earn money off its investment until it could afford to develop the property it had land banked. Amount of rent to be refunded
Pursuant to section 78A (4) of the RTA where premises are found to be unlawful the Tribunal can consider reimbursing rent paid. The Tribunal may order the return of all rent paid by the tenants, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. See section 78A(4)(ii) RTA. A proportionate return of rent may be considered.
The Tribunal has considered the following special circumstances of this case.
The landlord claimed that the tenant had the benefit of living in the premises for over 12 months at an affordable rent and did not raise concerns until after the landlord applied to have the tenancy ended because of recidivist rent breaches. The landlord also provided a Healthy Homes report from Panda Solutions Ltd dated 12 December 2023 which stated the premise is compliant with all the healthy homes standards.
The tenants provided doctors records regarding the gastric issues the family had suffered due to the water and sewage issues. They explained that they continued to live in the premises because they could not find anywhere else to move to in the area that was affordable. It was only after they had their own healthy homes assessment done on 6 December 2024 that they realised just what poor living conditions they were exposing themselves and their children to.
The premise does not have a fire wall and this poses a potential safety issue.
The Tribunal is obliged to take a strict approach when an unlawful premises is rented out because of the risks involved.
The landlord provided a rent summary that shows the tenants have paid $28,931.00 from the $31,900.00 they were contractually required to pay for the period 5 December 2023 to 13 January 2025. At the hearing the parties confirmed the tenants owed $2,969.00 in rent arrears to 13 January 2025.
Having carefully considered the special circumstances of this case the Tribunal orders a refund to the tenant of 40 percent of the rent in the sum of $12,760.00. The $2,969.00 rent arrears are to be deducted from this sum, leaving a rent rebate of $9,791.00.
This award is in addition to the order for compensation for breaches by the landlord of responsibilities to maintain the premises and comply with building requirements pursuant to sections 45(1)(b) and (c) RTA and the HIR. Had these breaches not occurred, the rent reduction I would have ordered would have been at an increased quantum of 60% of the total rent paid.
The parties have agreed the tenancy will end on Sunday 2 March 2025, to allow the tenants sufficient time to find alternative accommodation. For the period 14 January 2025 to 2 March 2025, the landlord must not charge the tenants more than $330.00 rent per week. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenants claim the landlord has harassed them and breached their quiet enjoyment.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The first instance was the second property manager turning up to access the storage area of the premise to investigate Unit 1’s plumbing issues. The tenants were in the house and heard banging in the storage area and found the property manager and a plumber in this area. The female tenant expressed her concerns to the property manager and said she thought there was a burglar down there. The tenants say they were given this area to store their belongings in and the other residents did not use this. The property manager says the storage area is under the house and could be used by any of the tenants and is not inside the premise as such she does not have to inform the tenants she is accessing the area under the right of access provisions in the RTA.
The property manager is correct, she does not have to give the tenants notice to access the storage area as she must if she wishes to access the internal areas of the premise. However, under s38 of the RTA, the tenants are entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premise and the property manager coming on to the property whenever she chooses and disturbs the tenants’ privacy and their quiet enjoyment. The tenants say the property managers regularly breached their quiet enjoyment during the tenancy, but were only able to give two concrete examples of the conduct complained of.
During the hearing, the tenants received a panicked text message from their children’s grandmother, who was baby sitting them. She stated a man was wandering around the back yard and she was afraid. She confronted the man and found he was a contractor the property manager had sent to get a quote for yard maintenance. The property manager had not given the tenants the courtesy of knowing he was coming so that they were not shocked and distressed by having a stranger enter the yard, disturbing their privacy and quiet enjoyment. The grandmother did not feel comfortable with the children playing outside with the contractor wandering around when she was unsure who he was and why he was there. This was the second breach the tenants were able to prove.
I find the landlord intentionally committed two unlawful acts by repeatedly going to the tenants’ home without giving them the courtesy of letting the tenants know they were there, and then getting defensive and aggressive when asked to leave by the tenants. Especially when the landlord was moving raw sewage around the property, using the tenants’ personal property to do so without their consent or agreement, and lingering in the driveway, backyard and at the front of the house when the tenants were at home and wanted some peace and privacy.
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.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $1,500.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord knew the tenants were uncomfortable with it repeatedly coming to the premises uninvited and carrying out tasks that they had not informed the tenants they were going to do or even why they were there; b. The tenants felt harassed and like they were under the constant observation of the property managers and that the property managers were disrespectful of their desire for peace, privacy, and quiet enjoyment of the property they were paying rent for when they sent contactors without any prior notice or even a courtesy text or call; c. it is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the breach of privacy caused; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to allow tenants to have quiet enjoyment of their home and privacy.
I make an order for the landlord to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for its breach of s38(3) of the RTA. accordingly. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS Should the tenancy be terminated pursuant to s 55(1)(a) of the RTA?
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed and was still in $2,969.00 arrears as at the date of the hearing. The landlord sought termination of the tenancy pursuant to section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 13 January 2025.
The tenants have proven they have an equitable offset to these rent arrears. Therefore, after all the remedies awarded to the tenants have been taken into consideration, their equitable offset is more than the rent arrears they owe the landlord.
As such, the rent was deemed not to be in arrears at the time they stopped paying the rent due to the serious repair and maintenance issues the landlord was not addressing in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances.
The landlord’s claim for termination of the tenancy is dismissed for the reasons set out in paragraphs [184] to [187] above, as is the claim for refund of the bond.

OTHER ORDERS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded with its claims so its application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Bond
The Bond has been released to the tenants as the tenancy is due to end on 2 March 2025 and there is unlikely to be any damages or cleaning costs incurred by the tenants, nor are they likely to leave any rubbish behind.
The tenants have indicated during the hearing they will be disadvantaged by having to save for another bond to allow them to secure alternative accommodation by 2 March 2025. The landlord also owes them ore money than will be offset by the rent payable until the end of the tenancy. As such, I release the bond back to the tenants now so it will be available to them when they require it to secure their next tenancy. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded in its proceedings and I consider publication is in the public interest and justified because of the landlord’s conduct.
The landlord’s application for non-publication is dismissed.
The tenants have not sought non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The tenants did not make apply in their application form or during the hearing for their names to be suppressed.
The tenants may find it difficult to get alternative accommodation if their names are published. They have not engaged in any conduct that would prevent the Tribunal ordering non-publication of their names and I am satisfied that the public interest in this matter does not outweigh the significant duress publishing the tenants’ names could result in when they apply for future tenancies. I therefore used my discretion to grant them suppression of their names.
I have decided to publish the tenancy address as a deterrent to the property owners continuing to rent out any of the three current unlawful dwellings at 310 Dairy Flat Highway, Albany Heights, RD3 Auckland, 0793.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5065732 — State of repair at Unit/Flat 2, 310 Dairy Flat Highway, Albany Heights,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5065732 — State of repair at Unit/Flat 2, 310 Dairy Flat Highway, Albany Heights,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

Does the landlord owe the tenants for the cost of one water tank refill?

Are the premises unlawful residential premises?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

Does the landlord owe the tenants for the cost of one water tank refill?

Are the premises unlawful residential premises?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions