What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5065748 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 5065748?

Compensation: $90.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5065748?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5065748?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12560452-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5065748 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 5065748?

Compensation: $90.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5065748?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5065748?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12560452-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5065748 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5065748 — net $2,767.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failure to maintain, healthy homes standards breaches, smoke alarm breaches	$2,400.00	failure to maintain, healthy homes standards breaches, smoke alarm breaches
Exemplary damages: tenancy agreement breaches	$250.00	tenancy agreement breaches
Compensation – reinstall panels	$90.00	Compensation – reinstall panels
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,767.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,767.00

[Tenant 1], representing both tenants, and [the landlord/s] both attended two full days of the substantive hearing in [Event location suppressed] on 12 June 2025 and on 25 September 2025 in-person.

The tenant has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, failure to maintain, unlawful residential premises, quiet enjoyment, unlawful entry, breach of Healthy Homes Standards relating to insulation, moisture/drainage, heating, draughts and ventilation, breach of smoke alarm regulations, Healthy Homes statement not provided, breach of tenancy agreement, locks, outgoings, refund of the application fee.

At the hearing on 12 June 2025, [Tenant 1] clarified that he did not wish to proceed with the outgoings claim so this claim was withdrawn. Whilst the tenant had sought to add other additional claims to the application, including retaliatory action pursuant to section 54 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA), harassment, privacy breach, misrepresentation or fraudulent statements pursuant to section 13A RTA and interference with essential services, amongst other claims, after discussion about these claims at the start of the first hearing on 12 June 2025, and after clarifying that several of these newer claims were included in claims already made, the tenant confirmed that the only additional claim to be added to their original claims was interference with essential services. Background

The tenancy began on 6 April 2024 and ended on 27 September 2024, lasting just over 5 months.

The tiny home that is the tenancy property is situated on a property in a rural country area, on land leased by the landlord from a Trust. The landlord built the tiny home himself and had lived in it himself for about 18 months, then a friend of the landlord’s lived in it before he offered it to the tenants, as he said they were looking for a place to live.

The tiny house is around 9 x 3 metres in size. The parties agreed that the tiny home had a downstairs bedroom, a kitchen and lounge area and an upstairs loft bedroom. Outside the tiny house is an ablutions block, with a toilet, shower, laundry, and outside sink. There is also a garage and a chook run.

There was no signed tenancy agreement between the parties, as they said they could not agree on terms. As such, the parties agreed that the boundaries of the tenancy property were unclear, as between the parties.

The tenants filed their application on 15 November 2024. The Tribunal initially heard the issue of whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claim. In an Order dated 20 December 2024, the Tribunal found it did have jurisdiction to hear the claim. The landlord filed a rehearing application, which was dismissed by the Tribunal. The claims were then scheduled for hearing. Burden of proof and evidence

The applicant must prove their claims to a civil standard of the balance of probabilities. This means the applicant must show it is more likely than not that something happened.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”

Where the parties differ in their evidence, the Tribunal looks to whether either party has provided additional supporting evidence about the issue.

All the evidence provided by the parties has been considered, regardless of whether there is a direct reference to it in this decision. Failure to maintain

[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.

Under section 45(1)(b) 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 problems 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-compliant or unsafe. 5

Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards (“HHS”).

Section 45(1)(c) RTA requires the landlord to comply with all the requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment as far as they apply to the premises.

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. Mould

The tenant said the landlord failed to maintain the property by not dealing with mould inside the property.

The tenant said there was mould in the house when they first moved in, that they told the landlord about it, and sanded it back but it returned, that the landlord said he would sort it out, but he only wiped the surfaces with apple cider vinegar, which did not work. They said there was mould under the kitchen bench on the shelves, and on the windowsills. The tenant said that, during a site visit on 18 September 2024, MBIE noted mould on a kitchen shelf. The tenant provided a photograph from MBIE that they said showed mould.

The landlord said that when the main kitchen counter gets wet it has black stains, which is not mould, but that this is what was showing in the MBIE photograph the tenants provided. He countered there had been no mould in the 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15] 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as LJ 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]. property when he lived in the tiny home, that he was advised by a tenancy organisation to wipe down the surfaces with apple cider vinegar and keep the house well-ventilated. He said the tenants closed the windows and used pillows in the windows and used a diesel heater, which he believed caused moisture build-up, along with dust from the tenants not cleaning the house properly, would likely cause some mould. I note the MBIE site visit photographs provided showed the living room windows blocked with cushions or pillows.

The tenant said they were very clean, that the house did not have sufficient window space for full ventilation, that the area under the kitchen bench had thick black mould and that mould was also on a bed base that had been in the property that was taken to the dump. The tenant said MBIE would have recognised mould and MBIE commented about the kitchen shelving area that was black as being mould.

The landlord refuted this and said the old bed base was taken by another person, cleaned up and was used, not taken to the dump, as there was no mould on it. He said the exterior of the building was watertight, apart from one thin strip with exposed insulation which had not then been sealed. He denied the tenant’s suggestion that dust would have been coming out of the walls in this way. He clarified that the black stains on the kitchen shelving was likely water staining from frying pans and that there were stains on the shelving from fat and soot at the bottom of those pans. He said it was on the bedroom windowsill that he wiped the surface with vinegar, though he was not sure if this was in fact mould.

I note the witness statement of Meretuhi Maxwell, an Investigator with the Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Team within the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (“MBIE”), dated 23 September 2024, about their site visit on 18 September 2024, where she said that “I saw gaps in the internal wall linings in the bedroom, areas where it looked to be termites and mould in the kitchen cupboard.”

A witness called by the landlord and cross-examined at the hearing by the tenant, [the witness], said she had visited the tenants in the tiny home multiple times when they lived there. [The witness] said she had not seen mould in the property when she visited the tenants there but had seen the tenants using a diesel heater inside the tiny home. She clarified she is in a relationship with the landlord and now lives in the tiny home with him, and said further she has not seen mould in the tiny home currently. As [the witness] acknowledged she is in a relationship with the landlord, I take that into consideration when determining the weight to give her evidence and place less weight on this evidence accordingly.

Mould is a type of fungus that lives on plant and animal matter. It reproduces by making spores. Airborne mould spores can be found both in indoor and outdoor environments. Mould will thrive in humid conditions (warm and wet). The ways to prevent mould growth include ventilation (air flow), heating (to allow drying out) removing of moisture (dehumidifying) and cleaning (stopping the mould spores from reproducing).

Mould can be caused by a lack of ventilation, but it also can be caused by leaks or water ingress.

If a tenant notices a problem with the mould which may have been caused by a defect with the property, then they have an obligation to notify the landlord. This is because the existence of mould can indicate an underlying defect in the property such as roof leak, or a leaking pipe in the wall. Likewise, a landlord should investigate the cause of mould complained of by a tenant or seen at an inspection and take action to remedy any problems with the property.

Each party has obligations under the RTA to ensure that the property does not become damp and mouldy. A tenant is required to keep premises reasonably clean and tidy during a tenancy (s40(1)(c) RTA), the tenant should ventilate the property and use heat pumps or other heat sources to heat and dry the home. If the tenant notices a defect, then they must notify the landlord.

The landlord’s obligation is to maintain premises to a reasonable level taking into account their age and character (s45(1)(b) RTA). This means investigating any complaints of leaking, or dampness and mould complained of by the tenant.

A landlord must ensure that the house complies with the Healthy Homes Standards (s45 (1)(bb)RTA) and when alerted to a problem that may mean noncompliance with the standard, should investigate and repair the items to make the home compliant again.

A landlord also has a responsibility under s45(1)(c) of the RTA to "comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety under any enactment as far as they apply to the premises". In that regard regulation 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 is relevant. It states: "Every house shall be free from dampness".

There was no more detailed information provided by the tenant from MBIE about whether they checked the black stain they observed in the kitchen cupboard more closely or not, to ascertain whether it was mould or black staining from the fat of pans or water. I note the MBIE photograph of the kitchen shelving provided has shadow over most of the shelving, making it less clear to ascertain what is on the shelves from the photograph. The parties dispute whether there was mould in the house.

Both parties have a level of responsibility to keep any potential mould in check within a house, as outlined above. Even if there was mould in the house, which if I accepted the tenant’s evidence would have been on the kitchen shelf and on the bedroom windowsill, I find the evidence provided is not sufficiently detailed to determine whether any such mould would have originated clearly from a source that was more likely the landlord’s responsibility versus the cleanliness and ventilation obligations of the tenant. As such, I dismiss this claim. Grounds

The tenant said the landlord did not maintain the grounds around the tiny home. It is important to note that, as there was no written tenancy agreement and the parties agreed there was no clear discussion or demarcation about the boundaries of the tenancy property, it was unclear as to where the grounds of the tenancy property were, as acknowledged by the parties.

The landlord said the grounds were the road leading to the tiny house and the land immediately around it. He said he had offered the garden beds to the tenants if they wanted it also. It was not clear from the evidence, however, whether the tenant had accepted the garden beds as being part of the tenancy property when they were there.

The tenants said the landlord was supposed to clear up the previous tenant’s rubbish left and bring the grounds around the tiny home to a good standard before they moved in. They said they brought this to the landlord’s attention, but he failed to address these matters. They said the lawns were overgrown.

The landlord said he agreed the tenants could have four weeks free rent in return for them clearing the grounds around the tiny house and clearing the previous tenant’s rubbish. He said he brought a trailer to take away some of the previous tenant’s rubbish too.

The tenants did not agree that they were to clear the grounds or the previous tenant’s rubbish in return for 4 weeks’ free rent. They acknowledged they did have 4 weeks free rent but believed this was because they had told the landlord they spent about 100 hours cleaning the property and pressure washing the outside of the property and he had compensated them for this with the 4 weeks free rent. The tenant said they took 2 trailers to the dump with the previous tenant’s rubbish left.

The landlord said he offered to do some weed whacking at the start of the tenancy but then thought he discussed with the tenants that it was the tenant’s responsibility to maintain the grounds around their tenancy property going forward from there. He said he did not do the weed whacking as he had some difficult personal circumstances at that time.

The tenants said there were holes around the property that were not maintained by the landlord, and that the entire grounds were overgrown. They provided photographs of the grounds around the tiny home. They confirmed there were issues defining who did what and where at the property, with the landlord. They said the landlord eventually removed the previous tenant’s rubbish and the collapsed woodshed towards the end of the tenancy.

The landlord said the trailer load he removed included items that had initially been left for these tenants in good order, but which had been left outside by the tenants.

Whilst there are photographs showing overgrown lawns and whilst the landlord did not dispute there were some holes around the property and that he collected some items left at the property, because the boundaries of the tenancy property, and the rest of the property were unclear as between the parties, and because there was no tenancy agreement with defined terms as to whose obligation it was to maintain the grounds around the property, and because the parties dispute what the 4 weeks’ free rent covered at the start of the tenancy, I find there is insufficient evidence to show it was likely the tenancy property that was not maintained by the landlord. Therefore, I dismiss this claim. Waste disposal

The tenant explained that they were required to use a form of composting toilet system at the property, which involved them using a bucket to put their waste into, which was then to be emptied into a larger barrel. The larger barrel was kept on land adjoining the tenancy property. There was also evidence that the tenants were expected to take their waste buckets to a neighbouring environmental organisation.

The tenant said the landlord failed to remove human waste from a barrel from land adjoining the property left by the previous tenant that was mostly full and did not provide an adequate human waste disposal system at the property. The tenants also said there was human waste left on the ground around the tiny home.

The landlord said he tried to run the composting toilet system in a similar way to that in an environmental organisation near the property, which he said had a legal, approved system. The landlord acknowledged, however, that the tenants had to take their waste buckets to this environmental organisation to dispose of the waste for the majority of the tenancy, and confirmed that it was not until the end of the tenancy that he put in gloves, a hose and plastic lid over the top for the toileting system, which he acknowledged would likely be pre-requisites for any approved system. The landlord submitted that the composting toilet system was an adequate means of disposal. However, he confirmed the waste matter was not discharged by waste pipe or soil pipe from the property. The landlord did not provide any evidence as to the legality of the toilet or waste system provided with the property.

Regulation 16(2) Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 provides that, in cases where no sewerage system is available the waste matter from every sanitary appliance shall be discharged by waste pipe or soil pipe, as the case may require, into an adequate drainage system connected to an adequate sewage tank or other adequate means of disposal.

Given the evidence, as acknowledged by the landlord, that the composting toilet system used at the property was likely not an approved system, as it did not have gloves, a hose or a plastic lid on the top, during most of the tenancy, nor did the landlord likely empty the waste barrel on adjoining land that was mostly full with waste from the previous tenant, in a timely manner during the tenancy, and given the tenant’s evidence about the gross inadequacies of this system for a family, I find the landlord failed to provide the property with adequate means of disposal nor with a sewerage system which complied with Regulation 16(2) of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947. As such, the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

The issue of exemplary damages is dealt with below. Kitchen sink and drainage

The tenant said the kitchen sink was semi clogged when they moved in and that it drained into an overflowing barrel. They said this became worse when it rained and was a cause of sickness for their family. The tenant said they told the landlord about this multiple times. They could not recall the first date they told the landlord about this, but said eventually the landlord came over, unscrewed it, flushed it out and then it worked. The tenant said they had to wait for a long time to get it fixed by the landlord. The tenant queried the legality of a sink going into a barrel.

The landlord confirmed he was asked a couple of times to unblock the sink and said he did so and put in a new fat trap down to the drainage field. He believed it became blocked and overflowed because of the fat on top. He said it was eventually replaced. He did not recall this being an issue, other than him having to clean the food scraps in the S-bend of the pipe. He said this issue was one of the issues addressed by the parties in a meeting they had and that it took him around 1-2 weeks to get the parts and replace it all, after he had cleared out the food scraps in the S-bend, which got it working again.

I will deal with this further along with the Healthy Homes Standards in relation to moisture ingress and drainage, set out below. Pest control

The tenant said the house was infested with rodents when they got there, as they found a huge mouse nest under the bed upstairs, mice living in the walls and that the property also had termites. They said they told the landlord about the termites, he said he would bug bomb them but because one of the tenants was pregnant at the time, the tenants said no to this. The tenants said the cat door was broken and there was an air gap in the door, and a cord went outside a window and so there was an ongoing gap there for pests to get in.

The landlord said that part of living in the country is ensuring cleanliness to keep on top of rodents and pests. He pointed out there were rat droppings found at the property when the tenants left. He said the cat door was replaced once he was told it was broken and that the air gap at the bottom of the door had a rubber seal. The landlord indicated there were plenty of rat bait stations around the property but acknowledged they were not right at the tiny home area. The landlord recalled having a discussion with the tenants about leaving mouse traps on site. The tenants said they bought mouse traps and poison in the end but did not recall a discussion with the landlord about trapping the rodents.

A landlord has an obligation to mitigate pests in the exterior of the property such as providing bait traps, for example, and should ensure that there are no holes in the house or defects like overgrown trees that allow easy access. Generally speaking, tenants are responsible for mitigating pests inside the house of the property.

Here, there was no dispute by the landlord that the cord which went outside the kitchen window left a gap, albeit that the landlord said it was a small gap. The landlord also acknowledged there were rat baits around the perimeter of the property but not right at the tiny home area. From this evidence, it was clear the landlord was aware there was a pest issue around the property. Given the evidence outlined, I find it likely that the landlord failed to mitigate pests at the property by providing rat bait stations and other forms of pest control immediately outside the property, and by failing to seal the gap through which the cord exited the property, leaving a gap through which pests could likely enter the house. As such, I find the landlord failed to mitigate the pest control issue at the property during the tenancy.

I find they have committed an unlawful act.

The issue of exemplary damages is dealt with below. [The tenant/s]

[The tenant/s] claim 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] consider 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).

The tenant said that the landlord did not install an extractor fan and that the windows in the house were not the correct size to ensure sufficient airflow. They said further that there were gaps in the floor and some exposure around the front door, as well as a gap in the window through which a cord exited the building.

The landlord acknowledged there was no extractor fan, as it took his electrician a long time to hook up an extractor fan, and that the windows did not comply with the percentage requirement they were meant to be, and thus did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.

Given this evidence of not meeting the Healthy Homes Standards requirements in relation to ventilation, I find [The landlord/s] committed an unlawful act.

The issue of exemplary damages is dealt with below. Draught stopping

The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

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).

The tenant said the cat door was broken from the start of the tenancy and there were draughts in the door jamb. They indicated the window could not close properly with the cord put through it. They said they ran a cord through the cat door and sealed it, which went to the fridge and laundry, and put a towel at the bottom of the door to plug the gap between there and the freezer.

The landlord said there was a draught stopper at the bottom of the door and the cat door broke while the tenants were there. He said that, in the tenant’s photographs about the gaps at the front door, the lining trim piece was missing but there was no gap to the outside from there. The landlord confirmed he put the cord through the window with some rubber sealing around it, thought there would be minimal draught through there but did not believe it would be cold.

Meretuhi Maxell, from MBIE, in her witness statement noted seeing an internal power cord, not protected from the weather, coming out from the window and connecting to the infinity unit outside.

Given the evidence outlined above, even if there was no draught coming through the gaps in the wall linings, which is disputed by the tenant, the evidence is clear there was an ongoing gap where the cord went out the window and connected to an outside infinity unit. Therefore, I find it likely that the property was not compliant with the draught stopping standards.

I find [The landlord/s] committed an unlawful act.

The issue of exemplary damages is dealt with below. Moisture ingress and drainage

The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

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).

The tenant said there was not proper guttering at the property until the end of the tenancy, and even then it drained onto the ground and under the house. They said the gutter in the ablutions block went to the ground too. The tenant indicated when they ran the washer, the water would run down and flood at the front of the house, and the kitchen barrel overflowed, with the landlord eventually putting a safety hazard sign on it. The tenant said the shower did not have any piping until September 2024.

The landlord said the ablutions block guttering went over the fence into a reserve and then went downhill and that he was never made aware of the washing machine water going into the front door. He disputed there not being piping for the shower and said it cannot be seen in the tenant’s photographs because there was mint growing over it.

Despite this, the landlord acknowledged that there was not an effective guttering and drainage system at the property before September 2024, which was near the end of the short tenancy. From the evidence regarding the kitchen sink drainage system, I find this also includes the kitchen drainage.

I find [The landlord/s] committed an unlawful act.

The issue of exemplary damages is dealt with below. Heating - HHS

The tenant said that the property did not comply with Healthy Homes Standards in relation to heating.

The heating standards provide that landlords must provide one or more fixed heaters that can directly heat the main living room. The heater/s must be acceptable types and must meet the minimum heating capacity required for the main living room.

The tenant said there was a small wood burner in the property, which was clogged so they had no proper heating. They confirmed they used the wood heater for the duration of their tenancy, but said it was still cold even when using it. They did not know if the wood burner was the correct size to meet the standards.

The landlord believed the fireplace was the correct size for the area but thought the tenants had not used the wood burner but instead used a diesel heater. The landlord said the fireplace worked well but he did not recall the wood burner’s kilowatt capacity, saying the wood burner was not clogged.

As neither party knew the kilowatt capacity or size of the wood burner, there was no evidence as to whether the wood burner met the heating standards of the healthy home requirements. Given this lack of evidence, I dismiss this claim. Insulation - HHS

The insulation standards for healthy homes requires rental properties to have ceiling and underfloor insulation. Some existing insulation may need to be topped up or replaced to meet the requirements.

The tenant said there was not proper insulation underneath the house, that some insulation panels kept falling out and he kept putting them back in. The tenant said it was very cold in the house, even with the fire going. The tenant said he installed a stack of new insulation panels also when they moved in. The tenant said they notified the landlord of this. The tenant provided some photographs which they said showed no insulation. However, it was difficult to ascertain from the photographs the areas of the premises photographed. There was no comment from MBIE in Ms Maxwell’s witness statement about insulation at the property. However, there were 2 MBIE photographs of underneath the tiny home showing some insulation panels that had dropped, which is dealt with below in the parties’ evidence.

The landlord said the house was compliant with insulation standards as the ceilings and walls were insulated and there were double-glazed windows. He recalled some insulation panels coming out that the tenant put back in, as the landlord said the relationship between them had broken down significantly at that point. He said he was aware the tenant had bought some adhesive to put back in some of the insulation panels. The landlord said there were other unused insulation panels at the property also, as he had bought more than he needed to do the original insulation. He thought the panels that fell out would only amount to around 10-20% of the total insulation. He said he had agreed with the tenants to put some of the original panels back in but did not do it before the tenant went ahead and did it himself. The landlord did not believe that a great number of panels fell out and were then put back in, as alleged by the tenant, as there were panels of broken insulation in their rubbish photographs. He believed a few panels likely had fallen out when he looked at the issue later.

Given the conflicting evidence of the parties around whether there was sufficient insulation at any one time during the tenancy, and without any additional supporting evidence provided by the tenant about this, I find there is insufficient evidence to show the landlord did not likely meet the healthy homes insulation standards and so dismiss this claim. Smoke alarms

Requirements relating to smoke alarms and insulation have been in effect since 1 July 2019. See Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarm and Insulation) Regulations 2016.

Section 5 of the Smoke Alarm Regulations provides that there must be at least 1 qualifying smoke alarm installed in each sleeping space or otherwise at the premises within 3 metres of the entrance (or main entrance) to the sleeping space, and there must be at least 1 qualifying smoke alarm on each storey or floor on which there is 1 or more habitable spaces. A sleeping space is defined as a space that is used or can reasonably expected to be used as a bedroom or other sleeping space.

Breaching any of the landlord’s s.45 obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord agreed there were no smoke alarms installed at the property during the tenancy. As such, I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

The issue of exemplary damages is dealt with below. Unlawful residential premises

The tenant said the premises is unlawful (i.e. an illegal dwelling) and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA.

Section 78A(2) RTA provides: For the purposes of this Act, unlawful residential premises means residential premises that are used for occupation for a person as a place of residence but— (a) that cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes by that person (whether generally or whether for the particular residential purposes for which that person is granted occupation); and (b) where the landlord’s failure to comply with the landlord’s obligations under section 36 or 45(1)(c), ..., has caused the occupation by that person to be unlawful or has contributed to that unlawful occupation.

Section 36 RTA provides that the landlord shall 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 45(1)(c) RTA provides that the landlord shall comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. Here, this requires consideration of whether the landlord has complied with either the tiny home requirements of the local Council, or whether the premises complies with the provisions of the Building Act 2004.

The tenant said the tiny home does not meet the definition of a tiny home on wheels (“THOW”) as set out in a flyer provided by the tenant from [The District Council]. The tenant indicated that, if the tiny home does not meet the definition of a THOW as set out by the [District Council], then it must be a building, but then would not meet the requirements of the Building Act 2004. Either way, the tenant said the tiny home is an unlawful residential premises.

The THOW flyer of the [District Council] provided by the tenant sets out 4 limbs to be considered generally in whether a THOW meets their definition as such, and so might be exempt from needing a building consent. This includes the following: a. Must be self-contained and not connected permanently to external services; b. Must be on wheels – remaining on a trailer with the ability to be easily moved. c. Must not be fixed to the ground via foundations and not fixed to a deck or other structure that would make relocation difficult; d. Adhere to the [District Council] planning rules about boundary setbacks and height restrictions.

The tenant said the tiny home is not self-contained, does not have the ability to be easily moved and was fixed to a deck that would make relocation difficult. The tenant did not provide any evidence about whether the tiny home adhered to the [District Council] planning rules about boundary setbacks or height restrictions. The tenant pointed to the comment made by Meretuhi Maxwell from MBIE that the tiny home did not appear to be able to be easily moved.

The tenant did not provide any evidence from the [District Council] or its staff that specifically related to this tiny home, as to whether it met their criteria to be a THOW, or whether the [District Council] would consider the tiny home to be a building. In other words, there was no evidence about whether the [District Council] staff assessed this particular tiny home as to whether it would require a building consent or not.

The landlord maintained the tiny home is self-contained, that it is easily moved and is not fixed as it is still on a trailer, that all its connections to grey water, gas and power can be easily unplugged, as all the power and plumbing work was done by professionals and that there are 2 planks of wood down one side of the tiny home that are used as a deck but which are easily removable, that they are attached to wooden poles with screws that can be removed.

The tenant said it is clearly not self-contained, with its sewage, that there is a concrete pad around it, the wood piles are concreted into the ground, that the water comes from big water tanks at a neighbouring property and the solar panels are heavy and the power cords go into the ground. The tenant disagreed that the tiny home would be easily moved.

The landlord countered that the tiny home was not built where it is situated but was built about 500 metres away and was then towed to its location with his truck. He said the power battery box can is outside the cable and is easily detached within seconds, that the wooden piles underneath are not dug into the ground, that there are 8 wheels and other blocks for stability under the tiny home, and that all wheels are on the ground. He said further that the concrete pad is not attached to the tiny home.

The parties disagreed on the definition of self-contained as to whether that included a toilet system that was outside the tiny home. Specific Council evidence could have clarified this but was not provided.

The parties disputed whether the tiny home met the definition of a THOW as set out in the flyer provided from the [District Council]. The evidence provided by the tenant in this regard, the [District Council] flyer on the definition of a THOW, and a reference by the tenant during the hearing to the [District Council] website, is generic information, meant for general education, in my view. The tenant did not provide evidence from the [District Council] as to a specific assessment of this tiny home and its circumstances, to see if it either met their definition of a THOW or whether they would consider it a building, and so require a building consent, which I would consider to be the most reliable and best evidence here. Without such evidence that is specific to this structure, or tiny home, I find there is insufficient Council or technical evidence to prove the tiny home was an unlawful residential premises. As such, I dismiss this claim. Unlawful entry

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.

A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant said the landlord came onto the tenancy property multiple times without notice. The tenants said they asked the landlord not to do this. The tenants said they did not have any texts of emails for most of these incidents, other than an incident in September 2024, where the landlord said by text to them around 2pm on 2 September 2024 that he was giving 24 hours’ notice to them that he was coming over to do outside work, and he arrived outside the property around 10-11am on 3 September 2024, which the tenants said was not 24 hours’ notice. The landlord did not agree with this. The tenant provided a copy of a text from one tenant to the other tenant saying the landlord had been over to deal with the chickens, expressing her frustration. However, there was no date on this text, though the tenant said it was in April 2024.

The landlord indicated the tenants told him the chickens got out and then he came to remove them. The tenants said it was unlawful entry for the landlord to walk through their space to get to the chickens. However, I note the parties acknowledged that neither of them knew where the boundaries of the tenancy property were in any event, and so it is unclear as to which land is attributable to the tenancy property and whether the landlord would have gone onto any such property to retrieve any chickens.

The landlord said he had given the tenant 24 hours’ notice of coming to do outside work at the property, which he believed was sufficient notice. He denied coming to the property repeatedly without notice.

As the tenant has not provided additional supporting evidence, by way of other texts and emails confirming the other visits alleged by the landlord without notice, and as the parties confirmed the landlord gave 24 hours’ notice about the outside work, though the parties differ on whether it was exactly 24 hours when the landlord arrived, I find there is insufficient evidence to prove this claim and so dismiss this claim. Quiet Enjoyment

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has harassed them.

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 tenant said the landlord’s father arrived at their property looking for his barrow and that the landlord’s father filmed them and yelled at them, leading to a Trespass Notice being issued against him. They also said the landlord came over to do maintenance which breached their quiet enjoyment.

The landlord said he was not aware of his father going to the property nor that he was trespassed by the tenants. He denied asking his father to do this at all.

The issue of the landlord going to the property to do maintenance has already been dealt with in the Unlawful entry section of this decision and so I will not consider this issue again here.

The tenant said further that the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment by having them look after his chickens, deal with a dead goat, clear up the previous tenant’s rubbish and use toilet buckets that had to be dumped elsewhere. These issues are addressed elsewhere in this decision in the failure to maintain and compensation sections and so I do not deal with them again here.

The tenant has not provided additional supporting evidence to show that the landlord’s father harassed them, or that the landlord was aware of this, or incited his father to do this in any way. The other issues alleged by the tenant in this regard have been addressed in other sections of this decision. As such, I find the tenant has provided insufficient evidence to prove this claim and so dismiss this claim. Tenancy agreement breaches

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing and/or did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant.

A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord agreed there was no written signed tenancy agreement for the tenancy. He said he provided a first draft of a tenancy agreement, that the tenants did not agree with the terms and so no tenancy agreement was made in writing.

The tenants agreed that they took issue with some terms of the landlord’s first tenancy agreement, as they felt some terms were too onerous, such as assuming liability for the power batteries of the solar panels. The tenants said they were willing to further negotiate the terms of any agreement though and provided copies of texts between them and the landlord showing they asked for a written tenancy agreement several times. The landlord did not deny this.

As there was no tenancy agreement in writing, signed and copied to the tenant prior to the tenancy, obviously there were also no contents in a tenancy agreement that were to be included in any tenancy agreement, pursuant to section 13A RTA, which includes a Healthy Homes Standards statement and insurance information required.

As the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed, nor was a copy of such an agreement provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing, I find the landlord has breached section 13 RTA.

In breaching section 13 RTA, I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

The issue of exemplary damages, and there being one underlying event in relation to the tenancy agreement situation, is dealt with below. Interference with essential services

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has interfered with the services to the premises by the power being turned off in the evening, around 6-7pm for the last 3 days of their tenancy, and turned back on the following morning around 10-11am.

The tenant said they believe somebody turned their power off for the last 3 days of the tenancy and alleged it was the landlord’s father, whom they then had served with a Trespass Notice, according to the tenant.

The landlord said he was not aware of his father having been trespassed from the property, and that the landlord did not turn off the tenant’s power, nor did he tell anybody else to do this, for the last three days of their tenancy.

A landlord must not interfere with the supply of water, gas, electricity, telephone of other service to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out. See section 45(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 45(2A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant did not provide any additional supporting evidence about the power being turned off by the landlord or any agent of the landlord for the last three days of the tenancy. The landlord denied doing this or telling anybody else to do it. I find the tenants have provided insufficient evidence to prove this claim and so dismiss this claim. Compensation

The tenants claimed compensation from the landlord as follows: a. Rent rebate of $4,500.00 for unlawful residential premises. b. Compensation for feeding, watering and cleaning up after chickens in the amount of $332.00. c. Compensation of $222.00 for a goat causing emotional damage to the tenants’ family when it passed away just before one of the tenants gave birth, and $22.00 for the tenant having to remove a dead goat. d. Compensation for the tenant installing insulation that the landlord should have installed - $60.00 for 3 glue tubes @ $20 each and $375.00 for labour of 5 hours 15 minutes x $60.00/hour. e. Emotional damage of $1,000.00. This was first raised during the second hearing by the tenant. It is unclear whether this figure claimed includes the compensation for emotional damage of $222.00 related to the goat as outlined above, as the latter claim was not raised by the tenant at the hearing, but was in their application. I will deal with both claims separately, as such. Rent rebate – unlawful residential premises

As the tenant has not proved their claim for unlawful residential premises, I cannot consider their claim for a rent rebate relating to that claim. As such, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for a rent rebate for unlawful residential premises. Chickens

The tenant said they had to look after the landlord’s chickens, that they agreed to do so on a short-term basis in exchange for eggs and chickens of their own, but that they never received eggs or chickens of their own, and that the landlord left the chickens with them for a long period, not short. They said the chickens were left with them for 6.5 weeks. They claimed $332.00, which was feeding and watering the chickens and cleaning up their poop. They felt this was a conservative estimate of the time they spent doing this.

The landlord understood he was feeding and watering the chickens as there was an automatic watering system on a ballcock for the chickens. He said he understood the chooks in the bottom block were for eating or laying eggs. He did not recall asking the tenants to assist with the chickens for any extended time, other than for a week or so. He did not share the tenant’s understanding about them receiving eggs or their own chickens in exchange for them looking after the chickens. The landlord did not believe the amount claimed represented the true time or work that the tenant did with the chickens. He said the chooks were removed from the run around June 2024.

The tenant provided a transcript of a recorded meeting they had with the landlord. However, even when this recording was played during the hearing, so as to hear the context and tones of the conversation, I find the landlord’s statement in that conversation to be ambiguous and not definitive of whether there was any agreement by the landlord that the tenants had looked after the chickens longer-term.

Due to insufficient additional supporting evidence of this claim by the tenant, I dismiss this claim. Installation of insulation

The tenant claimed $60.00 for 3 tubes of glue to install insulation and 5.15 hours @ $60.00/hour = $375.00 for the labour to install insulation.

The landlord thought it might have taken the tenant a while to put back some of the insulation panels but thought not as long as the tenant claimed. The landlord believed only a few panels would have needed replacing when viewed afterwards.

The rate of $60.00/hour, as claimed by the tenant, was discussed during the hearing, as I find it to be closer to a professional rate charged by a tradesperson experienced and skilled in installing insulation. The tenant thought it to be a reasonable hourly rate, even though he is not skilled or experienced in installing insulation, by his own admission.

I find it likely the tenant put back some insulation panels. There was little evidence provided, however, as to the actual time taken by the tenant in this regard, though he thought it might be closer to 15 hours in practice. There was also little evidence about the number of panels that had to be reinstalled, according to the tenant. The tenant did not provide any receipts for the tubes of glue for the insulation and so that claim for glue tubes has not been proved and is dismissed.

Given the little evidence provided, but there was an acknowledgement by the landlord that the tenant likely reinstalled some panels, I find a reasonable time for the tenant to put back any insulation panels that had dropped out to be 3 hours at a rate of $30.00/hour, for a total of $90.00, and award this to the tenant for putting back in some insulation panels that had likely dropped out. Goat

The tenant claimed $222.00 for compensation and emotional damage for a goat that they said the landlord told them to look after, and because they said the goat passed away just an hour before one of the tenants gave birth.

The landlord said the goat was wild and the previous tenant had taken it on. He said these tenants then also agreed to take over the goat. He said he told them if they did not want the goat, they could take it into a nearby paddock where other pet goats had gone.

The tenant said the nearby paddock was across the river and was inaccessible. The tenant said they asked the landlord many times to get rid of the goat.

The parties dispute the situation about the goat. Without any additional supporting evidence as to whose goat it was and who agreed what with whom about the care of the goat, I find there is insufficient evidence provided to prove this claim. As such, I dismiss this claim. Emotional damage

The tenant claimed $1,000.00 for emotional damage at the hearing. The tenant said this was for their family getting sick, having to poop in buckets, for the landlord saying he would do things and then not doing them, from worry about their children being hurt by hazards around the property, including the goat, and for the stress they suffered during the tenancy, dealing with a newborn in this situation and with visiting relatives over this time.

There was evidence provided about the tenants not being well whilst living in a cabin near this property, prior to moving into the tiny home. The tenant cross- examined one of the landlord’s witnesses about this. However, this evidence relates to a different tenancy, which predates this one.

The tenant provided some evidence via a doctor’s note that their family was sick over this time, but did not provide any additional supporting evidence from doctors, counsellors or any other similar professional evidence, about the impact of any stressful situations relating to the tenancy on them, relevant to considering any emotional damage claim. Given this lack of additional supporting evidence, I find the tenant has not proven this claim and so dismiss this claim. Locks

The tenant claims the landlord did not provide keys to the property. They said the landlord told them when they moved in that the keys were inside the tiny home but there were not keys. They said they assumed the previous tenant had taken the keys, and that they told the landlord many times they did not have keys to the tiny home.

A landlord must provide and maintain locks to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. Neither the landlord nor the tenant may alter or remove any locks without the other party's consent. See section 46(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 46(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord said there was only 1 key to the tiny home, as the door there was the only lockable item on the property. The landlord said the tenant only raised the issue of the key at the end of the tenancy, only about 1 week before he changed the lock on 5 September 2024.

The tenant said they did not have any texts or emails between them and the landlord confirming any discussions about the key.

Given both the parties differ in their evidence about the key, and without any additional supporting evidence from the tenant by way of text or email confirmation about them asking the landlord about this, for example, I find there is insufficient evidence to prove the claim and so dismiss this claim. Exemplary damages

Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved has that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act.

I have determined that the landlord has committed unlawful acts, for which exemplary damages can be ordered.

The Tribunal must take a global approach to exemplary damages meaning one order to a single maximum irrespective of the number of breaches of a section. See MBIE v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583.

The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA and the following apply: a. Landlord failing to meet obligations in respect of cleanliness, maintenance, smoke alarms, the healthy homes standards, or buildings, health, and safety requirements - s 45 (1A) RTA – maximum $7,500.00. b. Breaches relating to tenancy agreement- s.13(4) RTA – maximum $750.00.

I must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA, specifically: a. The intent of that person in committing the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.

Landlords are required to know the law and there is a public interest in ensuring landlords comply with the RTA.

The issue of whether an act is intentional has been considered in situations of damage caused in a tenancy. There, damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

I note this tenancy was a very short one, only lasting just over 5 months. The exemplary damages awards made, therefore, take this into consideration. Exemplary damages for Failure to maintain, Breach of Healthy Home Standards, Smoke alarm regulations

Here, the landlord allowed the situation to continue in relation to the Healthy Homes Standards being breached, smoke alarm regulations being breached and failure to maintain, as ordered breached above, for the majority of the period of the tenancy. Therefore, I find the landlord committed this unlawful act intentionally.

I have dealt with the landlord’s intent above. As a result of the landlord’s inaction, the premises were draughty, not well-ventilated and were subject to drainage issues. The tenants had to endure challenges to proper drainage, and draughts coming in through the window held open by a cord. The landlord also failed to provide any smoke alarms and subjected the tenants and their children to a level of risk that could have cost them their lives. The tenant should have been able to rely on the landlord meeting his obligations under the RTA and associated regulations. The landlord also did not provide an adequate disposal system, i.e. a proper toilet and human waste disposal system, which was very tough on the tenants, and a potential risk to their health. The public interest is served by landlords being penalised for providing premises that jeopardise tenants’ health and which do not meet basic standards of living for health and welfare, as well for renting premises which increase the risk from fire by not providing sufficient smoke alarms.

The maximum level of exemplary damages is $7,200.00. In this case I consider an order of one third of the maximum would be indicated. The landlord has committed an unlawful act, and I accept that there has been an impact for the tenant. I cannot see any aggravating or mitigating factors that would argue for a higher or lesser order. I therefore order exemplary damages of $2,400.00. Exemplary damages – breach of tenancy agreement provision

Here, the landlord did not follow through after the first draft of his tenancy agreement was rejected by the tenants, to continue negotiating with the tenants to reach and provide a written, signed tenancy agreement. This meant that all the contents that are usually to be provided in a tenancy agreement, pursuant to section 13AA RTA, also were not provided in any such tenancy agreement, meaning the tenants did not have the important information usually contained in written signed tenancy agreements, and neither did they have the security of a written, signed contract with clear terms. It is in the public interest that landlords provide written, clear, signed tenancy agreements before a tenancy starts, so tenants are aware of their responsibilities and rights and understand the terms of their tenancy.

I note the tenants claimed the landlord did not provide them with a healthy home statement, which they confirmed at the hearing was the healthy home statement required to be provided in a tenancy agreement. The tenants’ evidence related to asking the landlord to download a healthy homes form, fill it out and give it to them, around the same time the parties were discussing a tenancy agreement. I further note that both sections 13 and 13A of the RTA would potentially apply here. However, as there was no written tenancy agreement provided further to section 13 RTA, obviously there would not have been the contents included that were required in section 13A RTA. In my view, Parliament intended for section 13A RTA to apply to situations where there is a tenancy agreement, but a landlord has omitted to provide some or all of the contents required pursuant to section 13A, as opposed to a situation where there is no tenancy agreement at all, such as is the case here.

The District Court has ruled that, where there could be a number of exemplary damages orders made for the same underlying event, only one order should be made. 6

Further, I note the District Court’s global approach to exemplary damages, meaning one order to a single maximum irrespective of the number of breaches of a section. See MBIE v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583.

Here, there is essentially one underlying breach incident, namely there was no written and signed tenancy agreement that was provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy, which encompasses the requirement for the listed contents of any tenancy agreement in section 13A RTA, by implication.

The maximum level of exemplary damages is $750.00. In this case I consider an order of one third of the maximum would be indicated. The landlord has committed an unlawful act and I accept that there has been an impact for the tenants, who asked for a tenancy agreement several times. I cannot see any aggravating or mitigating factors that would argue for a higher or lesser order. I therefore order exemplary damages of $250.00. Filing fee

Because [The tenant/s] have been mostly successful with the claim I reimburse the filing fee. Suppression

Both parties requested name suppression. As the tenants have been mostly successful with the claim, they are entitled to name suppression. Therefore, I order that the tenants’ names and identifying details are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA. 6 Manage My Rental Limited v Baxter [2015] NZDC 12011

Section 95A(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal may, 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.

The landlord leases the land upon which the tiny home is current situated, lived in it before the tenants and moved back into it, after the tenants left. He said he plans to build a house on that land. The landlord offered the tiny home to the tenants for rent when they needed a place to live and was under the impression it would not be a long-term rental (disputed by the tenant), which was ultimately borne out, when the tenants left after just over 5 months. The landlord has young children and works with his family on the land. The situation has been very stressful for all parties. Given the evidence and in the circumstances, I find the landlord’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing his name. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5065748 — net $2,767.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: failure to maintain, healthy homes standards breaches, smoke alarm breaches	$2,400.00	failure to maintain, healthy homes standards breaches, smoke alarm breaches
Exemplary damages: tenancy agreement breaches	$250.00	tenancy agreement breaches
Compensation – reinstall panels	$90.00	Compensation – reinstall panels
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,767.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,767.00