What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5116812 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details, including the guarantors’ names, must

How much money was awarded in case 5116812?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5116812?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5116812?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13579743-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5116812 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details, including the guarantors’ names, must

How much money was awarded in case 5116812?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5116812?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5116812?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13579743-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5116812 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5116812 — Exemplary damages | TenantCheck

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details, including the guarantors’ names, must not be published. _51168122
The Tribunal declares that the landlord’s termination notices dated 27 November 2024 and 10 May 2025 were retaliatory and of no effect.
Yuan Chen must immediately pay [the tenant] $18,680.50 as calculated in the table below.
S W International Investment Limited trading as Jijia Property Management as agent for Yuan Chen is jointly and severally liable with Yuan Chen to immediately pay [the tenant] $17,855.50 of the amount ordered against Yuan Chen in Order 3.
Ray White Remuera Property Management T/A Rosella Property Holdings Limited as agent for Yuan Chen is jointly and severally liable with Yuan Chen to immediately pay [the tenant] $825.00 of the amount ordered against Yuan Chen in Order 3.
The claims are allowed as set out in the Tribunal’s

Reasons

below. All other claims are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is directed to release the bond of $2,257.14 to the tenant. DescriptionTenant Loss amenity – insulation Loss of amenity – extractor fans Loss of amenity – draught Compensation – HHS reports Exemplary damages – HHS Loss of amenity – drainage Loss of amenity - lighting Los of amenity – HWC Loss of amenity – heating Exemplary damages - FTM Exemplary damage – first retaliatory notice $4,731.44 $1,685.00 $250.00 $607.20 $1,800.00 $500.00 $250.00 $1,242.15 $885.71 $1,800.00 $1,625.00 Exemplary damages – second retaliatory notice Filing fees $3,250.00 $54.00 Total award$18,680.50 REASONS:
The tenant, [tenant’s name], attended the hearing in person. His parents, [tenant’s parent’s names], who were guarantors for the tenancy, also attended. The guarantors also lived at the address.
Mandy Zhang attended the hearing for Jijia Property Management as agent for the landlord from the beginning of the tenancy to 25 July 2025.
Ling Gao attended the hearing for Rosella Property Management as agent for the landlord for the period from 26 July 2025 to it ended. _51168123
Yuan Chen, the owner of the premises, attended for himself. A Tribunal-appointed Mandarin interpreter assisted with interpretation for Mr Chen. Background
The tenancy began on about 30 March 2022 and ended on 9 January 2026, so was of almost four years’ duration.
Jijia managed the tenancy from the beginning of the tenancy until 24 July 2025, a period of more than three years. Rosella managed the tenancy for only about six months from 25 July 2025 until the tenancy ended on 9 January 2026. Mr Chen was living overseas for most of the tenancy.
Ms Zhang owns and operates Jijia. She is effectively a sole operator and Jijia has few clients. On the other hand, Rosella Holdings is part of Ray White an established professional property management company of long standing. It has many employees and hundreds of clients and has longstanding experience in the industry.
The case has been challenging to assess. The tenant’s folder for hearing comprises 741 pages and Jijia’s main bundle comprises 521 pages and a secondary bundle comprising 139 pages. There were large amounts of other materials and submissions to consider.
The tenancy property is described shortly under the Market Rent head below. The claims
The tenant claims: a. The rent for the premises exceeded the market rent by a substantial amount. 1 b. The landlord failed to meet the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) for heating, draught stopping, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and insulation. 2 c.The landlord failed to comply with its duties in respect to smoke alarms. 3 1 RTA s 25. 2 RTA s 45(1)(bb); Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. 3 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016. _51168124 d. The landlord failed to maintain the premises in multiple respects, including failing to replace the hot water cylinder. 4 e. The landlord failed to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings by having no handrails in the main stairwell. 5 f.For reduction of the fixed term of the tenancy. 6 g. That the landlord issued a second retaliatory notice dated 10 May 2025 (having already issued a retaliatory notice dated 27 November 2024). 7 h. The tenant also added late “counterclaims” to the effect: o By way of “new breach”, the landlord misrepresented the grounds of termination, unreasonably delayed release of the bond, and a guarantor was coerced into agreeing to termination in 90 days. o By way of “counterclaim”, the landlord improperly transferred the management of the tenancy to Rosella. 8
For remedy, the tenant seeks compensation, exemplary damages, orders in respect to market rent reducing the rent from the time of their application on 2 July 2025, and a declaration that the landlord’s 10 May 2025 termination notice is retaliatory.
Rosella applied for rent arrears. However, the tenant accepted the claim prior to hearing and paid the arrears.
Jijia did not proceed with any claims.
The landlords’ remaining claims are struck out.

Was the rent substantially more than market rent?

Introduction

The house occupies a full-size section of about 943m 2 , almost one-quarter of an acre. The house was originally built in about 1963 but has been renovated to an updated 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 45(1)(b). 5 RTA s 45(1)(c); Building Code – Schedule D(1). 6 RTA s 66. 7 On 28 January 2025, the Tribunal found the landlord’s notice dated 27 November 2024 was retaliatory. 8 The tenant and guarantors rely on RTA ss 13, 16, and 47. _51168125 modern design and function. It has about 286m 2 floor area. The house has five bedrooms, three bathrooms, a separate toilet, and two car garages.
[Street name] Avenue is a no-exit street, on a similar latitude to One Tree Hill (Maungakiekie’s) volcanic cone, about 1.7 kilometres to its west. The house enjoys unobstructed views from its eastern side to One Tree Hill.
The tenant says Rosella advertised the premises for $1,450.00. However, the tenant and the guarantors ended up contracting with Jijia as agent and paid weekly rent of $1,480.00 per week from March 2022. The landlord increased the rent to $1,530.00 in 2023, and then finally increased the rent to $1,580.00 on 27 March 2024.
Mr Chen transferred management of the tenancy from Jijia to Rosella on 26 July 2025. After the tenant and guarantors moved out on 9 January 2026, Rosella rented the premises out to a family group from 31 March 2026 for a fixed term at the rate of $1,600.00 per week. Legal principles
Sections 25(1) and (3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provide: (1) On an application made to it at any time by the tenant, the Tribunal may, in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this section, on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount, to be specified in the order, that is in line with the market rent. (3) For the purposes of this Act, the market rent for any tenancy shall be the rent that, without regard to the personal circumstances of the landlord or the tenant, a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy, taking into consideration the general level of rents (other than income-related rents within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992) for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant.
The Tribunal must answer three questions to decide the market rent claim: 9 a. First, what the market rent would be for the relevant premises. b. Second, whether the rent is substantially above the market value. c.And, if so, thirdly, what the rent should be. 9 Property Brokers Hawke’s Bay Limited v Michaelsen [2024] NZDC 13815; and Fisken & Associates Limited v Lecole and Lecole [2023] NZDC 17698. _51168126

What is the market rent for the premises?

The test for market rent is the amount “a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive, and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy”.
The concept of the 'market' is constrained by the requirement that both parties be 'willing', and that the rent meets their 'reasonable' expectations. The factors the Tribunal may have regard to are “the general level of rents ... for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant”.
The parties provided appraisals from property management companies in support of their claims. The tenant and the guarantors relied on a market appraisal by Crockers that estimated the property’s estimated rent range at $1,350 to $1,550.00; Barfoot & Thompson indicated $1,500.00 to $1,600.00; and Aspire Property of $1,100.00 to $1,300.00.
Rosella’s appraisal of the weekly rent for the property for April 2026 was $1,600.00 to $1,650.00. Ms Gao says she and her company, Rosella, know this area well and submits the rent the tenant paid during the tenancy is entirely consistent with market rent. Ms Gao says Rosella advertised the property for rent on 3 March 2026 and the current tenants applied to rent it six days later, agreeing to a rent of $1,600.00. Ms Gao says Aspire’s appraisal cannot be relied upon because it does not know the area.
The tenant and guarantors submit the address is not in Epsom but in Royal Oak based on Watercare’s address for the premises. However, most Aucklanders would be content to regard the area as Epsom South, the address’s postcode 1023 is for Epsom, and a Google search of [Street name] Avenue brings up the street as being Epsom.
Typically, the Tribunal receives evidence for comparable rents based on advertisements for similar premises in the locality. This evidence has its limitations. Although advertisements usually list the essential features of the property advertised, there is often limited detail available for comparison. Photographs help but must be treated with caution because photographs will be selective, can be doctored, and may not depict the “warts and all” reality of the property marketed. It is only by going to the comparator premises that one can be confident of the comparability to the subject _51168127 premises. Also, advertisements only cover houses currently on the market and do not necessarily reflect the overall level of rents charged for existing similar tenancies in the area.
The parties’ evidence included comparator properties. I have viewed that evidence and found it helpful to establish a general sense of market rent for the area which is consistent with Crockers’, Barfoot’s, and Rosella’s appraisals (but not Aspire’s which is lower). I have not found any of the other properties directly comparable, however.
The Tribunal commonly refers to the market rent statistics published by Tenancy Services. 10 These statistics record a summary of the general level of rents charged for tenancies where bonds have been lodged over the previous six months (prior to the most recent month). The statistics set out what must be median or averaged figures for the lower quartile, median, and upper quartile rents suburb-by-suburb.
The premises is a higher quality residence in my view that is likely to fall into the upper quartile of houses as recorded by Tenancy Services for its market rent tool. At the time of writing this decision, the tool listed a 5-plus bedroom houses in the upper quartile in Epsom at $1,495.00. The tenant submitted a printout for 1 February to 31 July 2025 which put the upper quartile for 5-plus bedrooms at $1,600.00, and Royal Oak 4 bedrooms at $973.00; and most recently for the period, 1 May to 31 October 2025, for Epsom 5-plus bedroom houses the upper quartile had reduced to $1,524.00. Nearby Royal Oak only has 4-bedroom homes, the upper quartiles for which is $1,100.00.
The tenant and guarantors submit the landlord has significantly improved the premises since their tenancy so “you are now getting what you pay for”. However, the landlord and his agents say they have not carried out any significant improvements to the premises that would impact market rent.
The tenant’s other claims deal with maintenances issues. In the circumstances of this case, it is preferable to deal with maintenance defects under that head rather than under market rent.
I have considered all the materials the parties have provided. I am not going to detail all of it. In summary, I found Ms Gao’s evidence helpful. She is an experienced property manager who knows this area well. Her appraisal was consistent with Crocker’s and Barfoot’s appraisals. Significantly, for this issue, Rosella rented out the 10 Approved in Property Brokers Hawke’s Bay Limited v Michaelsen [2024] NZDC 13815 at [21]-[23]. _51168128 property at $1,600.00 about a week after advertising it. That cogently supports the submission that the market rent for the premises is in that vicinity. Moreover, that figure is consistent with Tenancy Services bond data for the area and with the other comparator properties the parties put forward.
The tenant and his family wanted to remain in the premises even as they claimed about its deficiencies which suggests the level of rent they were paying was not bad value for money. If there were homes in the area that were of similar quality for a better value rent, it would have been possible for them to move.
I am satisfied that the market rent for the premises from 27 March 2024 to 9 January 2026 was within the range of $1,500.00 to $1,600.00.

Was the rent substantially above the market value and what should the rent be?

It follows, the rent was not substantially above the market value. The rent should be as it was. Conclusion
The market rent claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach the HHS?

The tenant alleges the landlord failed to meet the HHS for insulation, ventilation, heating, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage. Introduction
The parties submitted five HHS reports in this case. In summary: a. PGF Limited report, 14 November 2023 (landlord report): found fully compliant. However, the assessor had initially found the extractor fans were not vented to the outside. The landlord remedied the venting issue by about May 2024. b. Trust Property Service reports, 11 October 2024 (tenant reports comprising an initial report and a later report once the landlord had been consulted) found: _51168129 oCeiling insulation, “need to check feasibility of the installation” in renovated area’s ceiling; “You need to return [the insulation] to its original position and re-flatten it” in the gabled roof area. oHeating, “The main living room has a heat pump, but not working...The main living room has a pellet burner, the landlord not going to use it.” oDraught, “sliding door needing maintenance”. oThe ventilation was “good” and met the standard. However, the report recommended to “Check the fan in shared bathroom downstairs and the fan in bathroom upstairs need to be inspected, as maintenance [or replacement] needed.” c.G Force report, 23 May 2025 (tenant report): o Ceiling insulation, “Fail”. “A top up is recommended”. o Drainage, “Fail”. “The gutters are clogged due to surrounding bushes and trees. The drainage is also clogged up causing flooding issues this needs a clean and a specialist to review as the drainage system for the property is insufficient.” o Ventilation, “Fail”. “Bathroom”. “Second Bathroom”, “Insufficient Venting”/ “Solution: replace fan”. o Draughts, “Fail”. “Sliding Door. 2 Gaps Present”. o Smoke alarms, “Fail”. “Alarm Location 1 – Hallway”. “The smoke alarms need to be tested by a specialist”. d. Healthy Homes New Zealand, 29 May 2025 (landlord report): o Insulation: “Below the minimum standard and the coverage has gaps”. o Ventilation: Bathrooms 1 and 3, “Airflow can’t be detected at outside vent...Is all ducting connected?” e. Sano Home, 20 October 2025 (landlord report): fully compliant. _511681210 Insulation
Under s 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, landlords must insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1. The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition. Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
After the first hearing of this matter, the Tribunal was satisfied that neither the ceiling insulation nor the bathroom fans were HHS compliant and made a work order requiring the landlord to meet the standard. The Tribunal issued a work order for the insulation and fans on 10 October 2025: 11
I heard evidence on the ceiling insulation and bathroom ventilation. Both of the tenant’s healthy homes reports found that the premises was not insulated. I am told that the first healthy homes inspector later changed his finding on the insulation, but I have not seen evidence that he did. Moreover, the tenants have obtained a quote from an installer who has been to the premise and confirmed that the insulation is not up to standard and can be upgraded. Further, the tenant’s photographs show that there is insulation in the ceiling already and there is adequate room in the ceiling cavity for insulation work to be done.
Therefore, I am going to make a work order for the insulation to be brought up to HHS.
Similarly, both of the tenant’s HHS reports indicate that at least two of bathroom extractor fans are underperforming. The earlier report did not “fail” the fans, but the second report failed the fans in the downstairs bathrooms. That indicates that the exhaust fans are performing more poorly as time passes.
I am going to make a work order for the landlord to instruct Ray White to have its contractor test the fans and fix or replace the fans as required. 11 Decision dated 10 October 2025. _511681211
Ms Gao told the Tribunal that the insulation work ordered was done on about 4 November 2025. Rosella’s contractor advised it: Dear Ling, Regarding the roof insulation installation at [premises address] Ave, Epsom, we would like to inform you that due to the low ceiling height, there is limited access space. As a result, the actual installation area is restricted. Approximately 40 m² of insulation has been installed using Eliment R3.6 Glasswool,165mm. In accordance with the Healthy Homes Standards, where the ceiling space has a height of less than 400mm and it is not reasonably practicable to install insulation, insulation is not required in those areas. ...The remaining areas, with heights between 150mm and 350mm, were too low to safely or practically install insulation. In all other circumstances, we would not have attempted to push insulation into such limited spaces, as it is not practical. However, given the Tenancy Tribunal order, we have installed as much insulation as possible in all accessible areas of the roof space. We confirm that insulation has been installed in all areas where it was practically possible to do so, in compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards requirements. (Please find the attached photos for reference.) Kind regards Yook Team
This contractor’s evidence conflicts with the tenant’s contractor who quoted for 140m 2 insulation. Not a lot turns on this issue, however, because the insulation work was not done until November and the Tribunal’s compensation order covers the cooler months from June to October.
The tenant’s two HHS reports confirmed that the premises’ insulation did not meet the standard. The landlord’s own HHS report dated 29 May 2025 confirmed that those reports were correct. Clearly, the landlord knew the premises did not comply with the HHS, yet it took a Tribunal order for the landlord to fix the issues. I am satisfied that the landlord intentionally breached the insulation standard.
The Tribunal will order compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to comply with the insulation standard. Remedies are discussed below. Ventilation
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. _511681212
The date for compliance with the HHS was 29 June 2022. The assessor who provided landlord’s HHS report dated 14 November 2023 initially found that the premises’ kitchen extractor fan was not properly vented to the outside. The landlord says that it remediated that issue on 6 March 2024. The landlord’s HHS report confirms compliance. The tenant and guarantors doubt the extractor fan was compliant, but the subsequent reports did not fail the kitchen’s extractor fan.
The HHS reports show that the extractor fans in two bathrooms were underperforming. The 11 October 2024 HHS report found the fans met the standard but recorded that the fans in the ensuite and main bathroom, “need to be inspected, as maintenance needed”. The May 2025 HHS reports found the fans failed the standard.
The landlord’s contractor fixed the extractor fans on about 20 October 2025
I am satisfied that the landlord knowingly failed to meet the ventilation standard.
I discuss remedies below. Heating
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The tenant’s 11 October 2024 HHS report records that the heat pump was not working. That is a maintenance and repair issue. It is dealt with under the failing to maintain heading below. Moisture ingress
The moisture ingress and drainage standards 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.
One of the reports found the house’s gutters were clogged. That is more aptly dealt with as a maintenance issue. I discuss the tenant’s moisture ingress and drainage issues under that head below. _511681213 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.
The tenant’s 11 October 2024 HHS report refers to a sliding door needing maintenance. The landlord’s contractor attended the premises on 17 October 2024 in respect to the draught issue, charging the landlord $287.50 for draught-stopping work. The landlord instructed a joiner to attend to the sliding door. That contractor charged the landlord $345.00 to repair it (invoice dated 24 October 2024). The tenant and guarantors were not satisfied that the sliding door was draught-free. Ms Zhang contacted the joiner again on 11 November 2024, and the joiner installed seals charging the landlord $172.50 (invoice dated 13 January 2025). The joiner installed another door seal on about 22 May 2025 at a cost of $195
I am satisfied that the premises were not draught-free. Compensation is discussed below.
I am not satisfied the breach was intentional, however. It has not been shown that the landlord did not instruct contractors to stem the draughts when the tenant brought the issue to the landlord’s attention. Exemplary damages are not available. Compensation
The insulation was non-compliant from the beginning of the tenancy until at least 4 November 2025. The house would have been colder and cost more to heat in the cooler months of about 1 May to 31 October. I assess that loss of amenity and expense at $45.00 per week. That is $1,182.86 per year. For the full four years, the amount ordered is $4,731.44. (Of this amount $636.43 may be attributed to Rosella as agent for the landlord for the latter part of 2025).
I assess the tenant’s loss of amenity due to the poor ventilation at about $10.00 per week for the period 29 June 2022 to 31 March 2024; and $15.00 per week for 11 October 2024 to 20 October 2025, which amounts to $881.43 and $803.57 respectively. The total amount is $1,685.00. (Of this amount $188.57 can be attributed to the tenancy after Rosella took over the management of the tenancy on 26 July 2025.)
For the draught issues, I order $250.00 nominal damages. _511681214
The tenant incurred $607.20 to obtain HHS reports. The Tribunal orders the landlord to reimburse the landlord for the cost of the reports. Exemplary damages
The landlord HHS report of 14 November 2023 retrospectively confirmed the landlord had complied with the ventilation standard after venting work done on 6 March 2024. The landlord’s report of 29 May 2025 confirmed that both the insulation and the ventilation needed attention. However, the landlord had not brought the insulation or the ventilation up to the standards by the time of the hearing, almost five months later, on 9 October 2025
Breaching the HHS is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 12
I am satisfied that the landlord intentionally committed unlawful acts by knowingly failing to meet the standards for insulation and ventilation.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. 13
The landlord dragged its feet. It complied, but the compliance was much delayed and required a Tribunal order. The landlord’s intent was to try to avoid the cost of meeting the standards. The non-compliance meant the premises were colder and moist than they should have been. It is in the tenant’s interest and the public interest to award the tenant exemplary damages as a deterrent to this landlord and other landlords who do not efficiently comply with their HHS obligations.
An order for $1,800.00 in exemplary damages for the landlord’s breaches is appropriate. Smoke alarms
The tenant claims the landlord failed to comply with its obligations in respect to smoke alarms. 12 RTA s 45(1A). 13 RTA s 109(3). _511681215
The tenant relies upon his 23 May 2025 HHS report which found the system was non- compliant and that, “The smoke alarms need to be tested by a specialist”.
The report that failed the system does not record why it did not comply. None of the other HHS reports failed the system. The premises originally had a wired-in fire alarm system. The landlord says the system was regularly serviced and was complied with the standards.
Without evidence of the premises’ smoke alarms’ alleged deficiencies, I cannot begin to assess whether the system failed the standard or not. I decline to find that the premises wired-in system did not meet the standard.
This claim is dismissed. Failing to maintain
The tenant claims the landlord breaches its duties to repair and maintain the premises in the following respects: a. Guttering and drainage. b. Electrical wiring and power points. c.Lighting and switches. d. Hot water cylinder. e. Heating. f.Moisture and mould. g. Heated towel rail. h. Taps. i.Toilet cistern valve. j.Drinking water filter. k.Shower door. l.Toilet seats. m. Entry gates. _511681216 Legal principles
Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1969 (RTA), landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) ... (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes...
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 14 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: 15 “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is, I think, 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...”
Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repair. 16 However, Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 17 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation... Guttering and drainage
On 27 January 2023, during the Auckland Anniversary Weekend holidays, the Auckland area including Epsom was deluged by an unprecedented downpour of rain. Many homes were flooded. Tragically, three people in the Auckland central area were killed, two by drowning and one when their house slipped down a bank. 14 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. 15 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 16 RTA, s 40(1)(d). 17 See n 2. _511681217
During the event, rainwater from the main house’s guttering cascaded onto a shed below containing the tenant’s family’s motor mower, electric panel heaters and other items. The tenant says the shed flooded damaging the family’s property due to the guttering not being cleaned prior to the tenancy beginning or later.
The landlord had the guttering cleaned out on only two occasions during the tenancy, so about every second year. That is infrequent, and I note that the tenant’s 23 May 2025 HHS report records the guttering needed to be cleaned out. Ms Zhang states that the gutters had been cleaned prior to the tenancy beginning (about a year before) and that because the gutters were protected by netting, they had only to be cleaned out about every two years.
The tenant submits that on the date of the disaster, the main house’s guttering was blocked due to the landlord failing to clean the guttering and submitted a video of water overflowing from the main house to the shed below, causing the shed to flood. The tenant submitted a video showing the upstairs guttering was overflowing onto the shed below. However, that alone does not establish on the balance of probabilities that the guttering was blocked during the downpours due to the guttering not being cleaned out. The guttering may have been blocked for other reasons due to the disaster-level rainfall or simply because the guttering could not cope with the extreme amount of rainwater the house experienced.
The rainfall was extreme. It was a major factor in the natural weather disaster. It is unfortunate the tenant’s possessions were damaged. However, I am not satisfied the landlord failed to maintain the guttering. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot find the landlord liable for the damage to the tenant’s belongings.
The tenant submits: 18 During the periods of concrete driveway, which is the sole accessway to the property. During periods of heavy rainfall, stormwater has not been adequately controlled or drained. Instead, it has overflowed onto the adjacent lawn area, resulting in significant erosion and the formation of a large ditch or cavern. A substantial volume of water continues to flow toward the garage area, where it collects in front of a cesspit that has become silted and has not functioned effectively during the tenants' four-year tenure. As a result of this failure, during heavy rain events, stormwater has accumulated, overflowed, and breached the garage/laundry doorway threshold. On at least one occasion, floodwater entered the garage and encroached approximately 600mm onto the carpeted area. The remaining water only dissipated after flowing over the concrete edge, across the lawn, through the hedge and into the neighbouring property. 18 Tenant’s Memorandum p 319. _511681218
I accept the tenant’s and guarantors’ evidence that the garage flooded on two occasions and that the lawns were frequently submerged in water due in part to ground drainage that was not equal to modern rain events.
For the loss of amenity and inconvenience, I order the landlord to compensate the tenant in the sum of $500.00.
I am not satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to maintain the premises’ drainage, so exemplary damages are not available. Electrical wiring and power points
The tenant claims the landlord did not adequately repair and maintain the premises’ wiring and power points.
Of particular concern, on 5 June 2025, the tenant reported that a contractor had received an electrical shock from an exposed wire. Ms Zhang gave evidence that she attended the premises the same day with an electrician who carried out a temporary repair and that the electrician attended to the electrical issues in June 2025. She submitted an invoice from Sparkykiwi Electrical Limited dated 1 July 2025 in support.
The evidence does not prove that the landlord failed to address the electrical problems within a reasonable time of being made aware of them. Lighting and switches
The tenant complains, “Approximately 34 lights (interior, exterior, and wet areas) were non-functional mainly due to transformer faults” and “Damage light switches caused electrical arcing, creating a safety risk.” 19
The tenant relied on “Maintenance & Repair request Forms”. However, they are not contemporaneous documents; the tenant created those documents after the event.
Ms Zhang says that she arranged for replacement bulbs and repairs whenever the tenant reported a problem. She submitted a copy of an invoice for electrical work ins the sum of $1,293.75 dated 18 April 2022. The landlord paid $96.64 for light bulbs on 4 December 2022 its electrician $466.21 on 5 December 2022. 19 Tenant’s Memorandum p 37. _511681219
In 2025, the landlord replaced most of the light fittings with LED light fittings. The tenant submits the landlord should have replaced the light fittings earlier. That probably would have been a better approach with the benefit of hindsight, but I am not persuaded the landlord’s initial approach amounted to a failure to maintain.
I am not satisfied that the landlord did not attend to the lighting issues to a reasonable state of repair. However, the tenant suffered loss of amenity and inconvenience in having to navigate the persistent failure of the lighting. It is appropriate to order damages of $250.00. Hot water cylinder
During the tenancy, the hot water cylinder failed.
On 23 July 2023, the tenant reported to Ms Zhang the premises had no hot water: It is untenable to live like this as we constantly running out of hot water.
The hot water cylinder had failed and was operating only in “limp” mode.
The landlord’s contractor attempted to instal a replacement heat pump on about 29 July 2023. The tenant rejected the attempted replacement because it only had a 180- litre capacity (not the 310 litres capacity the original cylinder had). On 7 August 2023, the tenant/guarantors emailed Ms Zhang: Mandy – running out of hot water all the time and huge power bill since this machine put into limp mode... ...A hot water heatpump 310l is fully available in Auckland and can be installed in 24 hrs! We insist you get this done please...
On 13 August 2023 the tenant/guarantors emailed Ms Zhang: New cylinder put in 11.08.33 Almost three weeks after we reported the old one had failed...
On 21 August 2023, the tenant/guarantors emailed Ms Zhang: ...it is with regret that I must advise you of a further problem with the hot-water system you installed recently... THE 246 LITRE ENVIROHEAT HEAT PUMP HOT WATER SYSTEM IS A LESSER BRAND, AND MUCH SMALLER CAPACITY THAN THE ORIGINAL RHEEM 310 LITRE SYLTEM WITH FAILED 23.08.23 [sic – probably meant to say 23.07.23] (ALMOST A MONTH AGO)... _511681220
The landlord received an invoice dated 25 August 2023 for $6,500.00 for the new hot water cylinder.
On 29 August 2023, the tenant emailed the landlord that they were, “Still running out of hot water”.
Ms Zhang says Jijia itself paid $575.00 to upgrade the hot water cylinder to the installation of a 302-litre hot water cylinder. The tenant and guarantors say the replacement occurred on about 8 September 2023, which is consistent with a record that Ms Zhang submitted of an invoice from Mainly Gas & Plumbing an invoice dated 22 September 2023.
The landlord delayed installing the correct hot water cylinder for financial reasons. I find the landlord failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard of repair in respect to the hot water cylinder.
The tenant and his family were without an adequate supply of hot water from 23 July to 8 September 2023, first because the hot water cylinder was running in limp mode and later because the new hot water cylinder was too small. At the time in 2023, the tenant was paying weekly rent at the rate of $1,480.00. I assess the tenant’s loss of amenity in the premises at about 12.5 percent which amounts $185.00 per week. The total amount is $1,242.15.
The landlord’s actions amount to the unlawful act of failing to maintain. I address exemplary damages below. Hedge-trimming and grounds maintenance
The tenant submits his family paid $730.00 at the beginning of the tenancy for hedge and tree maintenance that was the landlord’s responsibility; and then $300.00 every month afterwards until the landlord accepted it was its responsibility.
The tenant submitted photographs of the premises trees and hedges. The premises’ trees and hedges required trimming back from time-to-time. Naturally, after the trees and hedges had not been trimmed for a while they needed trimming. The photographs do not demonstrate the landlord failed to trim the hedges and trees to a reasonable standard.
The tenant did not provide any invoices to prove he or his family paid for the landlord’s hedge or tree maintenance done. There is therefore insufficient proof the tenant suffered a loss. _511681221
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord breached its garden maintenance duties. Heating
The tenant claims, “No adequate hearing was provided in the main living area for approximately six months during winter 2024.”
The tenant reported that the heat pump was not working properly, and the wood pellet fire was faulty in late June 2024. The landlord instructed a heat pump company to investigate the heat pump problem. The contractor checked the heat pump’s exterior unit but could not identify the fault because no power was running to it.
The landlord proposed replacing the heat pump with a wall heater. Ms Zhang says the tenant would not accept a wall heater and suggested the tenant and his family would obtain their own heat pump.
The tenant’s HHS report dated 11 October 2024 originally recorded the premises failed the hearing standard due in part to the heat pump not working. 20
The tenant says that he and his family stopped using the wood pellet fire because it was old, and the seal failed. The tenant says the landlord’s heating contractor Solomon Puka told them the fire should be replaced.
Ms Zhang submitted evidence that the pellet fire had been serviced annually. She provided an invoice from West City Hearing Services dated 12 July 2024 for $365.00 for servicing the wood pellet file. She also provided an email from Solomon Puka of West City dated 12 November 2024 commenting, “The pellet fire was working fine last service – not sure what the new issue is”.
The landlord eventually addressed the issue by installing two new heat pumps on about 3 December 2024.
The tenant reported problems with the heating in late June. The tenant considered the aging wood pellet heater was unsafe to use and wanted the heat pump to be replaced rather than a wall mounted radiant heater. The wood pellet heater was 20 It is common industry practice for reports to be amended without amending the date to account for landlords’ subsequent rectification of non-compliance with the standards. That appears to have occurred here because there is another version of the report that finds the hater compliant. _511681222 coming to the end of its useful life. However, the evidence does not establish it was not serviceable. Nonetheless, while the cheaper alternative of installing wall panel heaters may have met the HHS, they would have been more expensive to run and less efficient than a heat pump. The landlord should have promptly repaired the heat pump.
The tenant and his family suffered loss of the amenity of heat pump from about 30 June to the end of the cooler months to 31 October 2024 due to the landlord wishing to persist with the aging wood pellet fire and employ a less efficient form or wall mounted heater rather than replace the heat pump.
I find the landlord did not maintain and repair the heating to a reasonable state of repair. It is appropriate to award compensation. I calculate the tenant’s loss of amenity and increased power cost at $50.00 per week. The Tribunal amount orders the landlord to pay the tenant compensation of $885.71.
While the landlord’s response was suboptimal. I do not consider that there was a deliberate failure to maintain. Exemplary damages are not available. Even if it could be said the landlord acted intentionally, I consider exemplary damages would not be just in the circumstances because the landlord’s intended steps would have met the HHS. Moisture and mould in bottom bedroom
The tenant claimed his downstairs bedroom suffered from excessive moisture. However, the tenant was unable to identify the cause of the excessive moisture and prove the cause was due to the landlord breaching a relevant duty. That being so, the Tribunal is unable to assess whether landlord relevantly breached its obligations in that regard. Heated towel rail
The tenant submitted that the heated towel rail, which was installed on 19 April 2024, was, “Improperly installed in a wet area by an unqualified person, with unsafe wiring and incorrect placement height.”
The landlord rectified the tenant’s complaint on about 4 June 2025. _511681223
The tenant says a friend of the family who is an electrician saw the towel rail commented that it was dangerous, so the tenant and his family did not turn it on. However, the comments of the electrician friend are hearsay.
Without expert evidence on the issue, I am not able to assess the nature of the installation with any certainty and I decline to make a formal order on it Taps
The tenant submitted that, “Faulty basin taps remained unrepaired for approximately three years, impacting basic hygiene.
The tenant referred to an email dated 12 August 2023. Ms Zhang obtained a quote for basin mixers dated 30 August 2023 and the work was completed on about 22 September 2023.
I am not satisfied that the landlord did not attend to the taps within a reasonable time on the evidence. Toilet cistern valve
The cistern valve failed on one of the toilets.
The guarantor who is the tenant’s father is a plumber. He repaired the problem. However, the landlord did not pay the invoice for six months.
Despite the slow payment, the landlord did not fail to maintain the premises because the tenant helpfully completed the necessary work. Drinking water filter
The tenant claims the landlord failed to replace the drinking water filtering system’s filter.
The landlord says the device was not listed as a chattel, so it did not have to maintain it. The landlord did, however, replace the filter on one occasion.
The drinking water filtering system was a landlord chattel even if it was not listed as one. However, the premises’ drinking water was perfectly safe without filtering. Nor has the tenant proven that water from the filtered water system was not safe. _511681224
I am not satisfied the landlord was obliged to replace the filter. The filter is in the nature of a consumable item such as a light bulb. The tenant could have replaced the filter if he wished to. Nor has it been proven the water from the drinking water system was unsatisfactory. Shower door
The tenant claims, “Improper installation left heavy glass panels unsecured for approximately two years, posing serious injury risk”.
The tenant emailed Ms Zhang on 28 April 2022 about the shower door drooping on its hinges. Ms Zhang emailed the tenant on 3 May 2022 to advise she had forwarded the issue to “Plumber Jack”. Ms Zhang’s notes for repair and maintenance record a payment to “sunshine jack” of $368.00 in 2022.
Ms Zhang says another of the landlord’s contractors repaired the shower door on 28 November 2022 (Invoice from JL Property Services for $628.28 dated 29 November 2022) and then another on 20 September 2023 (Invoice from Auckland Showers & Frameless Glass Ltd for $465.00 for rehanging the shower door and replacing the brace).
The tenant considers the initial repairs were completed by a handyman and were substandard. However, the evidence does not establish that.
The tenant has not proven the landlord did not repair and maintain the shower door to a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. Toilet seats
The tenant claims, “All toilet seats were loose and unsafe throughout the tenancy”.
The tenant provided a copy of any email dated 17 November 2024: 21 Received with thanks, passed the message/photo to the certified plumber...
Ms Zhang records indicate her company paid for toilet seat work on 28 November 2024 in the sum of $299.00. 21 Tenant’s Memorandum page 138. _511681225
The tenant says he complained about the toilet seats on other occasions. Ms Zhang says she is confident that the landlord fixed the toilet seats within a reasonable time whenever it was made aware of the need for repair.
The tenant submitted the repair work was substandard. However, the evidence does not prove the claim on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to repair the loose toilet seats to a reasonable state within a reasonable time. Entry gates
The premises had an electric gate. The tenant claims the gates were faulty and “restricted access for over three years”.
Ms Zhang says the tenant reported a fault with the gates on 21 March 2024 and the next day she instructed a technician to attend to the problem, who attended on 25 March 2024.
The technician attended again on 7 May 2025. 22
It is likely the gates were wearing and aging and coming to the end of their useful lives. However, the contemporaneous records do not indicate the landlord failed to maintain the gates to a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. ` Exemplary damages
The landlord failed to replace the hot water cylinder in a timely way. The hot water cylinder only worked in “limp” mode resulting in the tenant and his family having no hot water or very limited amounts of hot water. The landlord firstly sought to replace the hot water cylinder with a much smaller capacity hot water cylinder that was not suitable for a family of five. Nor was the 246-litre cylinder a sufficient replacement.
The landlord’s intention was to save money. It was an inept attempt to economise. The landlord probably did not fully appreciate his obligations. The situation was made more difficult due to him losing confidence in his property manager, who was not highly experienced. The effect on the tenant and his family was to deprive them of adequate access to hot water for showering or bathing. It is in the tenant’s interest to award exemplary damages. It is also in the public interest to award exemplary 22 Landlord’s 521-page bundle p 195. _511681226 damages to deter this landlord and other landlords from taking half-measures when repairing or replacing a property’s basic infrastructure such as hot water cylinders.
The Tribunal sets exemplary damages at $1,800.00.

Did the premises meet building rules requirements?

The tenant claimed the premises did not comply with the Building Code because the main stairwell had no handrails. 23
The premises had extensive renovations completed a decade or so ago. To assess whether the building complied with the extant rules, the Tribunal would need to review the property file to assess compliance with the building consent’s terms, whether Council issued a Certificate of Code Compliance, and possibly, what the Code required at the time of construction. In addition, evidence from an expert in such matters would have assisted.
This kind of evidence not being available, the claim could not be progressed. Reduction of fixed term of the tenancy
The tenant included a claim for reduction of a fixed-term tenancy. However, while the tenancy began as a fixed term, it had rolled over to become a periodic tenancy. The tenancy was not for a fixed term, was ended by way of a tenancy order, and cannot be reduced. 24 Were the landlord’s notices retaliatory? The landlord’s first termination notice – 27 November 2024
In its decision dated 28 January 2025, the Tribunal found the landlord’s first termination notice dated 27 November 2024 was affected by the tenant issuing a 14- day notice for HHS and maintenance and repair issues, finding:
...Given the short time between the tenant’s 14 day notice and the landlord serving the 90 day notice, there is a strong inference that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant exercising his rights. 23 RTA s 45(1)(c); Building Code – Schedule D(1). 24 RTA s 66. _511681227
In this situation the evidential onus shifts to the landlord to show that there was a legitimate reason for the notice. The property manager submitted that the house is very well maintained but there has been an ongoing issue with the wiring that needs to be investigated. This will take 2-3 days and she is not confident the tenant will allow proper access for that to happen. She also said it is very hard to communicate with the tenant and that some of the communication with her has been insulting. The owner submitted that he instructed the property manager to give the 90 day notice because he wants to carry out a full examination of the tenancy premises so he can decide how much he will spend on maintenance. He said the house needs to be empty for this to happen.
I have considered the submissions and the relevant documents. It seems most likely to me that the landlord was partly motivated by the tenant exercising his right to maintenance and compliance with the HHS. This is because of the timing, and also because the landlord has been motivated by the tenant’s actions. There is an independent HHS report, so it seems unlikely to me the tenant has acted vexatiously. I find the landlord gave a retaliatory notice. The landlord’s second termination notice – 10 May 2025
That the landlord issued another notice about three months after the Tribunal’s decision, on 10 May 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
Ms Zhang’s covering email attaching the notice states: This notice is issued in accordance with section 51(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, because the landlord intends to move into the property and use it as their principal place of residence.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. 25
To be “motivated by” something, means the thing was a factor in the landlord’s decision to terminate. The alleged factor relied on does not have to be the only thing; it only needs to be a contributing factor.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. 26 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 25 RTA s 54(1). 26 RTA s 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. _511681228 the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. 27
A notice infected with a desire to “get back” at the tenant for exercising their rights against the landlord will be bad for being retaliatory. A notice of termination given for only genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory. 28
The tenant highlights that he had immediately emailed the landlord about maintenance issues just prior to the notice being issued. The tenant’s email was just one of many over the months. The tenant had many active claims against the landlord in the Tribunal. The tenant accused the property manager of lying. The parties did not trust one another. The relationship between the tenant, Ms Zhang and Mr Chen, the principal landlord had become dysfunctional due to fundamental disagreements and consequent stress.
The tenant in this case submits a relevant factor is the tenant exercising his rights to require the landlord to attend to maintenance, repair, and compliance with the HHS. A principal issue in this case is whether the landlord’s declared reason for giving termination was genuine and fair.
Mr Chen explained that he and his family had booked airline tickets to travel from China in November 2024, intending to return to the house but the Tribunal’s first order prevented them from moving in. Then after the Tribunal ordered termination by consent of the parties as at 9 January 2026, his family moved into the premises. However, Mr Chen says, people came to the property on 15 February 2026, asking whether they were tenants. Having just returned from China, Mr Chen and his family found the intrusion quite stressful.
Consequently, Mr Chen and his family did not remain in the house and do not currently live in New Zealand. Rosella re-let the premises to a family group, with that tenancy commencing on 31 March 2026.
Given that Mr Chen and his family did not continue to live in the premises for any length of time, I am not persuaded that his stated purpose for termination to use the premises as his principal place of residence was genuine. It is understandable that 27 RTA s 109(3). 28 For example, in Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA244/88, 3 November 1988, Judge Ongley upheld the Tribunal’s decision that a termination notice was not retaliatory. Judge Ongley was “quite satisfied that Mrs Woodman acted reasonably on the basis of the information known to her...I am not called upon to decide whether the complaints were justified, only to decide whether Mrs Woodman gave notice in retaliation or for genuine and fair reasons.” _511681229 he wished to end the tenancy due to the breakdown of his relationship with the tenant and dissatisfaction with the property manager’s management of the premises. It was a messy and stressful situation.
Nonetheless, the tenant’s exercise of his tenancy rights was an integral part of the parties’ relationship breakdown. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord’s notice was partly motivated by the tenant exercising his Residential Tenancies Act rights. Remedies
The landlord acted intentionally on both occasions.
I am satisfied it would be just to order exemplary damages, having regard to the landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the tenant, and the public interest. 29
The landlord was desperate to end the tenancy and resorted to a reason which lacked validity. The notice made the tenant feel insecure in the tenancy. It is in the tenant’s interest to order exemplary damages. There is a strong public interest it the Tribunal firmly deterring landlords’ actions such as this that undermine tenants’ security of tenure.
For the first retaliatory notice, I order exemplary damages of $1,625.00.
For the second retaliatory notice, I order exemplary damages $3,250.00. The Tribunal had already found the first notice retaliatory. I consider the landlord’s stated reason for termination was not genuine. The public interest calls for a firmer response for repeated breaches and breaches that involve disingenuous reasons.
I have considered whether the Tribunal should order compensation. The tenant has not provided medical evidence to prove he was impacted by the retaliatory notices. While the circumstances became stressful for the tenant and the notices would have contributed to that, on the evidence, general damages are warranted. The tenant’s later claims
I did not find the tenant’s latterly added claims raised valid issues capable of decision in the Tribunal. 29 RTA s 109(3). _511681230
The tenant alleges the landlord misrepresented the grounds of termination at the hearing at which the Tribunal ordered the termination of the tenancy by consent. However, that was not an active factor in the Tribunal’s decision which was in any event by consent.
The tenant submits a guarantor was coerced into agreeing to termination in 90 days. However, although the landlord keenly wanted the tenancy to end and claimed he and his family needed the premises for their principal residence, the landlord’s submissions at the hearing did not amount to coercion.
The tenant alleges the landlord unreasonably delayed release of the bond. However, it is usual practice for the bond to be retained until the Tribunal final determines disputes. Nor does the Act require landlords to consent to the bond being released.
By way of “counterclaim”, the tenant claims the landlord improperly transferred the management of the tenancy to Rosella. 30 However, Mr Chen had become dissatisfied with Jijia’s services. He was perfectly entitled to end his agency agreement with Jijia and instruct Rosella. Nor did Mr Chen changing to a more experienced property manager prejudice the tenant.
These claims are dismissed. Filing fees
The tenant filed three applications.
The landlord filed two applications.
The tenant succeeded in many of its claims. The landlord succeeded in its rent arears claim, albeit the tenant accepted the arrears prior to the hearing.
The Tribunal orders the landlord to reimburse the tenant $54.00 towards the tenant’s filing fees. 31 Bond
The balance of the bond it to be returned to the tenant. 30 The tenant relied on RTA ss 13, 16, and 47. 31 RTA s 102(4)(b). _511681231 Non-publication
The tenant seeks an order for non-publication.
The tenant substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 32
The Tribunal orders non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details. The identifying details include the guarantors’ name because they are the tenant’s parents and have the same surname so publication of their names would naturally identify the tenant. Joint and several liability
Mr Chen as principal is liable to the tenant for the full amount ordered in this decision.
Jijia as Mr Chen’s agent is jointly and severally liable with Mr Chen in the amount of $17,855.50.
Rosella as Mr Chen’s agent’s joint liability with Mr Chen is $825.00.

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details, including the guarantors’ names, must not be published. _51168122
The Tribunal declares that the landlord’s termination notices dated 27 November 2024 and 10 May 2025 were retaliatory and of no effect.
Yuan Chen must immediately pay [the tenant] $18,680.50 as calculated in the table below.
S W International Investment Limited trading as Jijia Property Management as agent for Yuan Chen is jointly and severally liable with Yuan Chen to immediately pay [the tenant] $17,855.50 of the amount ordered against Yuan Chen in Order 3.
Ray White Remuera Property Management T/A Rosella Property Holdings Limited as agent for Yuan Chen is jointly and severally liable with Yuan Chen to immediately pay [the tenant] $825.00 of the amount ordered against Yuan Chen in Order 3.
The claims are allowed as set out in the Tribunal’s

Reasons

below. All other claims are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is directed to release the bond of $2,257.14 to the tenant. DescriptionTenant Loss amenity – insulation Loss of amenity – extractor fans Loss of amenity – draught Compensation – HHS reports Exemplary damages – HHS Loss of amenity – drainage Loss of amenity - lighting Los of amenity – HWC Loss of amenity – heating Exemplary damages - FTM Exemplary damage – first retaliatory notice $4,731.44 $1,685.00 $250.00 $607.20 $1,800.00 $500.00 $250.00 $1,242.15 $885.71 $1,800.00 $1,625.00 Exemplary damages – second retaliatory notice Filing fees $3,250.00 $54.00 Total award$18,680.50 REASONS:
The tenant, [tenant’s name], attended the hearing in person. His parents, [tenant’s parent’s names], who were guarantors for the tenancy, also attended. The guarantors also lived at the address.
Mandy Zhang attended the hearing for Jijia Property Management as agent for the landlord from the beginning of the tenancy to 25 July 2025.
Ling Gao attended the hearing for Rosella Property Management as agent for the landlord for the period from 26 July 2025 to it ended. _51168123
Yuan Chen, the owner of the premises, attended for himself. A Tribunal-appointed Mandarin interpreter assisted with interpretation for Mr Chen. Background
The tenancy began on about 30 March 2022 and ended on 9 January 2026, so was of almost four years’ duration.
Jijia managed the tenancy from the beginning of the tenancy until 24 July 2025, a period of more than three years. Rosella managed the tenancy for only about six months from 25 July 2025 until the tenancy ended on 9 January 2026. Mr Chen was living overseas for most of the tenancy.
Ms Zhang owns and operates Jijia. She is effectively a sole operator and Jijia has few clients. On the other hand, Rosella Holdings is part of Ray White an established professional property management company of long standing. It has many employees and hundreds of clients and has longstanding experience in the industry.
The case has been challenging to assess. The tenant’s folder for hearing comprises 741 pages and Jijia’s main bundle comprises 521 pages and a secondary bundle comprising 139 pages. There were large amounts of other materials and submissions to consider.
The tenancy property is described shortly under the Market Rent head below. The claims
The tenant claims: a. The rent for the premises exceeded the market rent by a substantial amount. 1 b. The landlord failed to meet the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) for heating, draught stopping, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and insulation. 2 c.The landlord failed to comply with its duties in respect to smoke alarms. 3 1 RTA s 25. 2 RTA s 45(1)(bb); Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. 3 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016. _51168124 d. The landlord failed to maintain the premises in multiple respects, including failing to replace the hot water cylinder. 4 e. The landlord failed to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings by having no handrails in the main stairwell. 5 f.For reduction of the fixed term of the tenancy. 6 g. That the landlord issued a second retaliatory notice dated 10 May 2025 (having already issued a retaliatory notice dated 27 November 2024). 7 h. The tenant also added late “counterclaims” to the effect: o By way of “new breach”, the landlord misrepresented the grounds of termination, unreasonably delayed release of the bond, and a guarantor was coerced into agreeing to termination in 90 days. o By way of “counterclaim”, the landlord improperly transferred the management of the tenancy to Rosella. 8
For remedy, the tenant seeks compensation, exemplary damages, orders in respect to market rent reducing the rent from the time of their application on 2 July 2025, and a declaration that the landlord’s 10 May 2025 termination notice is retaliatory.
Rosella applied for rent arrears. However, the tenant accepted the claim prior to hearing and paid the arrears.
Jijia did not proceed with any claims.
The landlords’ remaining claims are struck out.

Was the rent substantially more than market rent?

Introduction

The house occupies a full-size section of about 943m 2 , almost one-quarter of an acre. The house was originally built in about 1963 but has been renovated to an updated 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 45(1)(b). 5 RTA s 45(1)(c); Building Code – Schedule D(1). 6 RTA s 66. 7 On 28 January 2025, the Tribunal found the landlord’s notice dated 27 November 2024 was retaliatory. 8 The tenant and guarantors rely on RTA ss 13, 16, and 47. _51168125 modern design and function. It has about 286m 2 floor area. The house has five bedrooms, three bathrooms, a separate toilet, and two car garages.
[Street name] Avenue is a no-exit street, on a similar latitude to One Tree Hill (Maungakiekie’s) volcanic cone, about 1.7 kilometres to its west. The house enjoys unobstructed views from its eastern side to One Tree Hill.
The tenant says Rosella advertised the premises for $1,450.00. However, the tenant and the guarantors ended up contracting with Jijia as agent and paid weekly rent of $1,480.00 per week from March 2022. The landlord increased the rent to $1,530.00 in 2023, and then finally increased the rent to $1,580.00 on 27 March 2024.
Mr Chen transferred management of the tenancy from Jijia to Rosella on 26 July 2025. After the tenant and guarantors moved out on 9 January 2026, Rosella rented the premises out to a family group from 31 March 2026 for a fixed term at the rate of $1,600.00 per week. Legal principles
Sections 25(1) and (3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provide: (1) On an application made to it at any time by the tenant, the Tribunal may, in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this section, on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount, to be specified in the order, that is in line with the market rent. (3) For the purposes of this Act, the market rent for any tenancy shall be the rent that, without regard to the personal circumstances of the landlord or the tenant, a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy, taking into consideration the general level of rents (other than income-related rents within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992) for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant.
The Tribunal must answer three questions to decide the market rent claim: 9 a. First, what the market rent would be for the relevant premises. b. Second, whether the rent is substantially above the market value. c.And, if so, thirdly, what the rent should be. 9 Property Brokers Hawke’s Bay Limited v Michaelsen [2024] NZDC 13815; and Fisken & Associates Limited v Lecole and Lecole [2023] NZDC 17698. _51168126

What is the market rent for the premises?

The test for market rent is the amount “a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive, and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy”.
The concept of the 'market' is constrained by the requirement that both parties be 'willing', and that the rent meets their 'reasonable' expectations. The factors the Tribunal may have regard to are “the general level of rents ... for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant”.
The parties provided appraisals from property management companies in support of their claims. The tenant and the guarantors relied on a market appraisal by Crockers that estimated the property’s estimated rent range at $1,350 to $1,550.00; Barfoot & Thompson indicated $1,500.00 to $1,600.00; and Aspire Property of $1,100.00 to $1,300.00.
Rosella’s appraisal of the weekly rent for the property for April 2026 was $1,600.00 to $1,650.00. Ms Gao says she and her company, Rosella, know this area well and submits the rent the tenant paid during the tenancy is entirely consistent with market rent. Ms Gao says Rosella advertised the property for rent on 3 March 2026 and the current tenants applied to rent it six days later, agreeing to a rent of $1,600.00. Ms Gao says Aspire’s appraisal cannot be relied upon because it does not know the area.
The tenant and guarantors submit the address is not in Epsom but in Royal Oak based on Watercare’s address for the premises. However, most Aucklanders would be content to regard the area as Epsom South, the address’s postcode 1023 is for Epsom, and a Google search of [Street name] Avenue brings up the street as being Epsom.
Typically, the Tribunal receives evidence for comparable rents based on advertisements for similar premises in the locality. This evidence has its limitations. Although advertisements usually list the essential features of the property advertised, there is often limited detail available for comparison. Photographs help but must be treated with caution because photographs will be selective, can be doctored, and may not depict the “warts and all” reality of the property marketed. It is only by going to the comparator premises that one can be confident of the comparability to the subject _51168127 premises. Also, advertisements only cover houses currently on the market and do not necessarily reflect the overall level of rents charged for existing similar tenancies in the area.
The parties’ evidence included comparator properties. I have viewed that evidence and found it helpful to establish a general sense of market rent for the area which is consistent with Crockers’, Barfoot’s, and Rosella’s appraisals (but not Aspire’s which is lower). I have not found any of the other properties directly comparable, however.
The Tribunal commonly refers to the market rent statistics published by Tenancy Services. 10 These statistics record a summary of the general level of rents charged for tenancies where bonds have been lodged over the previous six months (prior to the most recent month). The statistics set out what must be median or averaged figures for the lower quartile, median, and upper quartile rents suburb-by-suburb.
The premises is a higher quality residence in my view that is likely to fall into the upper quartile of houses as recorded by Tenancy Services for its market rent tool. At the time of writing this decision, the tool listed a 5-plus bedroom houses in the upper quartile in Epsom at $1,495.00. The tenant submitted a printout for 1 February to 31 July 2025 which put the upper quartile for 5-plus bedrooms at $1,600.00, and Royal Oak 4 bedrooms at $973.00; and most recently for the period, 1 May to 31 October 2025, for Epsom 5-plus bedroom houses the upper quartile had reduced to $1,524.00. Nearby Royal Oak only has 4-bedroom homes, the upper quartiles for which is $1,100.00.
The tenant and guarantors submit the landlord has significantly improved the premises since their tenancy so “you are now getting what you pay for”. However, the landlord and his agents say they have not carried out any significant improvements to the premises that would impact market rent.
The tenant’s other claims deal with maintenances issues. In the circumstances of this case, it is preferable to deal with maintenance defects under that head rather than under market rent.
I have considered all the materials the parties have provided. I am not going to detail all of it. In summary, I found Ms Gao’s evidence helpful. She is an experienced property manager who knows this area well. Her appraisal was consistent with Crocker’s and Barfoot’s appraisals. Significantly, for this issue, Rosella rented out the 10 Approved in Property Brokers Hawke’s Bay Limited v Michaelsen [2024] NZDC 13815 at [21]-[23]. _51168128 property at $1,600.00 about a week after advertising it. That cogently supports the submission that the market rent for the premises is in that vicinity. Moreover, that figure is consistent with Tenancy Services bond data for the area and with the other comparator properties the parties put forward.
The tenant and his family wanted to remain in the premises even as they claimed about its deficiencies which suggests the level of rent they were paying was not bad value for money. If there were homes in the area that were of similar quality for a better value rent, it would have been possible for them to move.
I am satisfied that the market rent for the premises from 27 March 2024 to 9 January 2026 was within the range of $1,500.00 to $1,600.00.

Was the rent substantially above the market value and what should the rent be?

It follows, the rent was not substantially above the market value. The rent should be as it was. Conclusion
The market rent claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach the HHS?

The tenant alleges the landlord failed to meet the HHS for insulation, ventilation, heating, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage. Introduction
The parties submitted five HHS reports in this case. In summary: a. PGF Limited report, 14 November 2023 (landlord report): found fully compliant. However, the assessor had initially found the extractor fans were not vented to the outside. The landlord remedied the venting issue by about May 2024. b. Trust Property Service reports, 11 October 2024 (tenant reports comprising an initial report and a later report once the landlord had been consulted) found: _51168129 oCeiling insulation, “need to check feasibility of the installation” in renovated area’s ceiling; “You need to return [the insulation] to its original position and re-flatten it” in the gabled roof area. oHeating, “The main living room has a heat pump, but not working...The main living room has a pellet burner, the landlord not going to use it.” oDraught, “sliding door needing maintenance”. oThe ventilation was “good” and met the standard. However, the report recommended to “Check the fan in shared bathroom downstairs and the fan in bathroom upstairs need to be inspected, as maintenance [or replacement] needed.” c.G Force report, 23 May 2025 (tenant report): o Ceiling insulation, “Fail”. “A top up is recommended”. o Drainage, “Fail”. “The gutters are clogged due to surrounding bushes and trees. The drainage is also clogged up causing flooding issues this needs a clean and a specialist to review as the drainage system for the property is insufficient.” o Ventilation, “Fail”. “Bathroom”. “Second Bathroom”, “Insufficient Venting”/ “Solution: replace fan”. o Draughts, “Fail”. “Sliding Door. 2 Gaps Present”. o Smoke alarms, “Fail”. “Alarm Location 1 – Hallway”. “The smoke alarms need to be tested by a specialist”. d. Healthy Homes New Zealand, 29 May 2025 (landlord report): o Insulation: “Below the minimum standard and the coverage has gaps”. o Ventilation: Bathrooms 1 and 3, “Airflow can’t be detected at outside vent...Is all ducting connected?” e. Sano Home, 20 October 2025 (landlord report): fully compliant. _511681210 Insulation
Under s 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, landlords must insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1. The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition. Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
After the first hearing of this matter, the Tribunal was satisfied that neither the ceiling insulation nor the bathroom fans were HHS compliant and made a work order requiring the landlord to meet the standard. The Tribunal issued a work order for the insulation and fans on 10 October 2025: 11
I heard evidence on the ceiling insulation and bathroom ventilation. Both of the tenant’s healthy homes reports found that the premises was not insulated. I am told that the first healthy homes inspector later changed his finding on the insulation, but I have not seen evidence that he did. Moreover, the tenants have obtained a quote from an installer who has been to the premise and confirmed that the insulation is not up to standard and can be upgraded. Further, the tenant’s photographs show that there is insulation in the ceiling already and there is adequate room in the ceiling cavity for insulation work to be done.
Therefore, I am going to make a work order for the insulation to be brought up to HHS.
Similarly, both of the tenant’s HHS reports indicate that at least two of bathroom extractor fans are underperforming. The earlier report did not “fail” the fans, but the second report failed the fans in the downstairs bathrooms. That indicates that the exhaust fans are performing more poorly as time passes.
I am going to make a work order for the landlord to instruct Ray White to have its contractor test the fans and fix or replace the fans as required. 11 Decision dated 10 October 2025. _511681211
Ms Gao told the Tribunal that the insulation work ordered was done on about 4 November 2025. Rosella’s contractor advised it: Dear Ling, Regarding the roof insulation installation at [premises address] Ave, Epsom, we would like to inform you that due to the low ceiling height, there is limited access space. As a result, the actual installation area is restricted. Approximately 40 m² of insulation has been installed using Eliment R3.6 Glasswool,165mm. In accordance with the Healthy Homes Standards, where the ceiling space has a height of less than 400mm and it is not reasonably practicable to install insulation, insulation is not required in those areas. ...The remaining areas, with heights between 150mm and 350mm, were too low to safely or practically install insulation. In all other circumstances, we would not have attempted to push insulation into such limited spaces, as it is not practical. However, given the Tenancy Tribunal order, we have installed as much insulation as possible in all accessible areas of the roof space. We confirm that insulation has been installed in all areas where it was practically possible to do so, in compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards requirements. (Please find the attached photos for reference.) Kind regards Yook Team
This contractor’s evidence conflicts with the tenant’s contractor who quoted for 140m 2 insulation. Not a lot turns on this issue, however, because the insulation work was not done until November and the Tribunal’s compensation order covers the cooler months from June to October.
The tenant’s two HHS reports confirmed that the premises’ insulation did not meet the standard. The landlord’s own HHS report dated 29 May 2025 confirmed that those reports were correct. Clearly, the landlord knew the premises did not comply with the HHS, yet it took a Tribunal order for the landlord to fix the issues. I am satisfied that the landlord intentionally breached the insulation standard.
The Tribunal will order compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to comply with the insulation standard. Remedies are discussed below. Ventilation
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. _511681212
The date for compliance with the HHS was 29 June 2022. The assessor who provided landlord’s HHS report dated 14 November 2023 initially found that the premises’ kitchen extractor fan was not properly vented to the outside. The landlord says that it remediated that issue on 6 March 2024. The landlord’s HHS report confirms compliance. The tenant and guarantors doubt the extractor fan was compliant, but the subsequent reports did not fail the kitchen’s extractor fan.
The HHS reports show that the extractor fans in two bathrooms were underperforming. The 11 October 2024 HHS report found the fans met the standard but recorded that the fans in the ensuite and main bathroom, “need to be inspected, as maintenance needed”. The May 2025 HHS reports found the fans failed the standard.
The landlord’s contractor fixed the extractor fans on about 20 October 2025
I am satisfied that the landlord knowingly failed to meet the ventilation standard.
I discuss remedies below. Heating
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The tenant’s 11 October 2024 HHS report records that the heat pump was not working. That is a maintenance and repair issue. It is dealt with under the failing to maintain heading below. Moisture ingress
The moisture ingress and drainage standards 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.
One of the reports found the house’s gutters were clogged. That is more aptly dealt with as a maintenance issue. I discuss the tenant’s moisture ingress and drainage issues under that head below. _511681213 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.
The tenant’s 11 October 2024 HHS report refers to a sliding door needing maintenance. The landlord’s contractor attended the premises on 17 October 2024 in respect to the draught issue, charging the landlord $287.50 for draught-stopping work. The landlord instructed a joiner to attend to the sliding door. That contractor charged the landlord $345.00 to repair it (invoice dated 24 October 2024). The tenant and guarantors were not satisfied that the sliding door was draught-free. Ms Zhang contacted the joiner again on 11 November 2024, and the joiner installed seals charging the landlord $172.50 (invoice dated 13 January 2025). The joiner installed another door seal on about 22 May 2025 at a cost of $195
I am satisfied that the premises were not draught-free. Compensation is discussed below.
I am not satisfied the breach was intentional, however. It has not been shown that the landlord did not instruct contractors to stem the draughts when the tenant brought the issue to the landlord’s attention. Exemplary damages are not available. Compensation
The insulation was non-compliant from the beginning of the tenancy until at least 4 November 2025. The house would have been colder and cost more to heat in the cooler months of about 1 May to 31 October. I assess that loss of amenity and expense at $45.00 per week. That is $1,182.86 per year. For the full four years, the amount ordered is $4,731.44. (Of this amount $636.43 may be attributed to Rosella as agent for the landlord for the latter part of 2025).
I assess the tenant’s loss of amenity due to the poor ventilation at about $10.00 per week for the period 29 June 2022 to 31 March 2024; and $15.00 per week for 11 October 2024 to 20 October 2025, which amounts to $881.43 and $803.57 respectively. The total amount is $1,685.00. (Of this amount $188.57 can be attributed to the tenancy after Rosella took over the management of the tenancy on 26 July 2025.)
For the draught issues, I order $250.00 nominal damages. _511681214
The tenant incurred $607.20 to obtain HHS reports. The Tribunal orders the landlord to reimburse the landlord for the cost of the reports. Exemplary damages
The landlord HHS report of 14 November 2023 retrospectively confirmed the landlord had complied with the ventilation standard after venting work done on 6 March 2024. The landlord’s report of 29 May 2025 confirmed that both the insulation and the ventilation needed attention. However, the landlord had not brought the insulation or the ventilation up to the standards by the time of the hearing, almost five months later, on 9 October 2025
Breaching the HHS is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 12
I am satisfied that the landlord intentionally committed unlawful acts by knowingly failing to meet the standards for insulation and ventilation.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. 13
The landlord dragged its feet. It complied, but the compliance was much delayed and required a Tribunal order. The landlord’s intent was to try to avoid the cost of meeting the standards. The non-compliance meant the premises were colder and moist than they should have been. It is in the tenant’s interest and the public interest to award the tenant exemplary damages as a deterrent to this landlord and other landlords who do not efficiently comply with their HHS obligations.
An order for $1,800.00 in exemplary damages for the landlord’s breaches is appropriate. Smoke alarms
The tenant claims the landlord failed to comply with its obligations in respect to smoke alarms. 12 RTA s 45(1A). 13 RTA s 109(3). _511681215
The tenant relies upon his 23 May 2025 HHS report which found the system was non- compliant and that, “The smoke alarms need to be tested by a specialist”.
The report that failed the system does not record why it did not comply. None of the other HHS reports failed the system. The premises originally had a wired-in fire alarm system. The landlord says the system was regularly serviced and was complied with the standards.
Without evidence of the premises’ smoke alarms’ alleged deficiencies, I cannot begin to assess whether the system failed the standard or not. I decline to find that the premises wired-in system did not meet the standard.
This claim is dismissed. Failing to maintain
The tenant claims the landlord breaches its duties to repair and maintain the premises in the following respects: a. Guttering and drainage. b. Electrical wiring and power points. c.Lighting and switches. d. Hot water cylinder. e. Heating. f.Moisture and mould. g. Heated towel rail. h. Taps. i.Toilet cistern valve. j.Drinking water filter. k.Shower door. l.Toilet seats. m. Entry gates. _511681216 Legal principles
Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1969 (RTA), landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) ... (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes...
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 14 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: 15 “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is, I think, 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...”
Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repair. 16 However, Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 17 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation... Guttering and drainage
On 27 January 2023, during the Auckland Anniversary Weekend holidays, the Auckland area including Epsom was deluged by an unprecedented downpour of rain. Many homes were flooded. Tragically, three people in the Auckland central area were killed, two by drowning and one when their house slipped down a bank. 14 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. 15 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 16 RTA, s 40(1)(d). 17 See n 2. _511681217
During the event, rainwater from the main house’s guttering cascaded onto a shed below containing the tenant’s family’s motor mower, electric panel heaters and other items. The tenant says the shed flooded damaging the family’s property due to the guttering not being cleaned prior to the tenancy beginning or later.
The landlord had the guttering cleaned out on only two occasions during the tenancy, so about every second year. That is infrequent, and I note that the tenant’s 23 May 2025 HHS report records the guttering needed to be cleaned out. Ms Zhang states that the gutters had been cleaned prior to the tenancy beginning (about a year before) and that because the gutters were protected by netting, they had only to be cleaned out about every two years.
The tenant submits that on the date of the disaster, the main house’s guttering was blocked due to the landlord failing to clean the guttering and submitted a video of water overflowing from the main house to the shed below, causing the shed to flood. The tenant submitted a video showing the upstairs guttering was overflowing onto the shed below. However, that alone does not establish on the balance of probabilities that the guttering was blocked during the downpours due to the guttering not being cleaned out. The guttering may have been blocked for other reasons due to the disaster-level rainfall or simply because the guttering could not cope with the extreme amount of rainwater the house experienced.
The rainfall was extreme. It was a major factor in the natural weather disaster. It is unfortunate the tenant’s possessions were damaged. However, I am not satisfied the landlord failed to maintain the guttering. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot find the landlord liable for the damage to the tenant’s belongings.
The tenant submits: 18 During the periods of concrete driveway, which is the sole accessway to the property. During periods of heavy rainfall, stormwater has not been adequately controlled or drained. Instead, it has overflowed onto the adjacent lawn area, resulting in significant erosion and the formation of a large ditch or cavern. A substantial volume of water continues to flow toward the garage area, where it collects in front of a cesspit that has become silted and has not functioned effectively during the tenants' four-year tenure. As a result of this failure, during heavy rain events, stormwater has accumulated, overflowed, and breached the garage/laundry doorway threshold. On at least one occasion, floodwater entered the garage and encroached approximately 600mm onto the carpeted area. The remaining water only dissipated after flowing over the concrete edge, across the lawn, through the hedge and into the neighbouring property. 18 Tenant’s Memorandum p 319. _511681218
I accept the tenant’s and guarantors’ evidence that the garage flooded on two occasions and that the lawns were frequently submerged in water due in part to ground drainage that was not equal to modern rain events.
For the loss of amenity and inconvenience, I order the landlord to compensate the tenant in the sum of $500.00.
I am not satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to maintain the premises’ drainage, so exemplary damages are not available. Electrical wiring and power points
The tenant claims the landlord did not adequately repair and maintain the premises’ wiring and power points.
Of particular concern, on 5 June 2025, the tenant reported that a contractor had received an electrical shock from an exposed wire. Ms Zhang gave evidence that she attended the premises the same day with an electrician who carried out a temporary repair and that the electrician attended to the electrical issues in June 2025. She submitted an invoice from Sparkykiwi Electrical Limited dated 1 July 2025 in support.
The evidence does not prove that the landlord failed to address the electrical problems within a reasonable time of being made aware of them. Lighting and switches
The tenant complains, “Approximately 34 lights (interior, exterior, and wet areas) were non-functional mainly due to transformer faults” and “Damage light switches caused electrical arcing, creating a safety risk.” 19
The tenant relied on “Maintenance & Repair request Forms”. However, they are not contemporaneous documents; the tenant created those documents after the event.
Ms Zhang says that she arranged for replacement bulbs and repairs whenever the tenant reported a problem. She submitted a copy of an invoice for electrical work ins the sum of $1,293.75 dated 18 April 2022. The landlord paid $96.64 for light bulbs on 4 December 2022 its electrician $466.21 on 5 December 2022. 19 Tenant’s Memorandum p 37. _511681219
In 2025, the landlord replaced most of the light fittings with LED light fittings. The tenant submits the landlord should have replaced the light fittings earlier. That probably would have been a better approach with the benefit of hindsight, but I am not persuaded the landlord’s initial approach amounted to a failure to maintain.
I am not satisfied that the landlord did not attend to the lighting issues to a reasonable state of repair. However, the tenant suffered loss of amenity and inconvenience in having to navigate the persistent failure of the lighting. It is appropriate to order damages of $250.00. Hot water cylinder
During the tenancy, the hot water cylinder failed.
On 23 July 2023, the tenant reported to Ms Zhang the premises had no hot water: It is untenable to live like this as we constantly running out of hot water.
The hot water cylinder had failed and was operating only in “limp” mode.
The landlord’s contractor attempted to instal a replacement heat pump on about 29 July 2023. The tenant rejected the attempted replacement because it only had a 180- litre capacity (not the 310 litres capacity the original cylinder had). On 7 August 2023, the tenant/guarantors emailed Ms Zhang: Mandy – running out of hot water all the time and huge power bill since this machine put into limp mode... ...A hot water heatpump 310l is fully available in Auckland and can be installed in 24 hrs! We insist you get this done please...
On 13 August 2023 the tenant/guarantors emailed Ms Zhang: New cylinder put in 11.08.33 Almost three weeks after we reported the old one had failed...
On 21 August 2023, the tenant/guarantors emailed Ms Zhang: ...it is with regret that I must advise you of a further problem with the hot-water system you installed recently... THE 246 LITRE ENVIROHEAT HEAT PUMP HOT WATER SYSTEM IS A LESSER BRAND, AND MUCH SMALLER CAPACITY THAN THE ORIGINAL RHEEM 310 LITRE SYLTEM WITH FAILED 23.08.23 [sic – probably meant to say 23.07.23] (ALMOST A MONTH AGO)... _511681220
The landlord received an invoice dated 25 August 2023 for $6,500.00 for the new hot water cylinder.
On 29 August 2023, the tenant emailed the landlord that they were, “Still running out of hot water”.
Ms Zhang says Jijia itself paid $575.00 to upgrade the hot water cylinder to the installation of a 302-litre hot water cylinder. The tenant and guarantors say the replacement occurred on about 8 September 2023, which is consistent with a record that Ms Zhang submitted of an invoice from Mainly Gas & Plumbing an invoice dated 22 September 2023.
The landlord delayed installing the correct hot water cylinder for financial reasons. I find the landlord failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard of repair in respect to the hot water cylinder.
The tenant and his family were without an adequate supply of hot water from 23 July to 8 September 2023, first because the hot water cylinder was running in limp mode and later because the new hot water cylinder was too small. At the time in 2023, the tenant was paying weekly rent at the rate of $1,480.00. I assess the tenant’s loss of amenity in the premises at about 12.5 percent which amounts $185.00 per week. The total amount is $1,242.15.
The landlord’s actions amount to the unlawful act of failing to maintain. I address exemplary damages below. Hedge-trimming and grounds maintenance
The tenant submits his family paid $730.00 at the beginning of the tenancy for hedge and tree maintenance that was the landlord’s responsibility; and then $300.00 every month afterwards until the landlord accepted it was its responsibility.
The tenant submitted photographs of the premises trees and hedges. The premises’ trees and hedges required trimming back from time-to-time. Naturally, after the trees and hedges had not been trimmed for a while they needed trimming. The photographs do not demonstrate the landlord failed to trim the hedges and trees to a reasonable standard.
The tenant did not provide any invoices to prove he or his family paid for the landlord’s hedge or tree maintenance done. There is therefore insufficient proof the tenant suffered a loss. _511681221
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord breached its garden maintenance duties. Heating
The tenant claims, “No adequate hearing was provided in the main living area for approximately six months during winter 2024.”
The tenant reported that the heat pump was not working properly, and the wood pellet fire was faulty in late June 2024. The landlord instructed a heat pump company to investigate the heat pump problem. The contractor checked the heat pump’s exterior unit but could not identify the fault because no power was running to it.
The landlord proposed replacing the heat pump with a wall heater. Ms Zhang says the tenant would not accept a wall heater and suggested the tenant and his family would obtain their own heat pump.
The tenant’s HHS report dated 11 October 2024 originally recorded the premises failed the hearing standard due in part to the heat pump not working. 20
The tenant says that he and his family stopped using the wood pellet fire because it was old, and the seal failed. The tenant says the landlord’s heating contractor Solomon Puka told them the fire should be replaced.
Ms Zhang submitted evidence that the pellet fire had been serviced annually. She provided an invoice from West City Hearing Services dated 12 July 2024 for $365.00 for servicing the wood pellet file. She also provided an email from Solomon Puka of West City dated 12 November 2024 commenting, “The pellet fire was working fine last service – not sure what the new issue is”.
The landlord eventually addressed the issue by installing two new heat pumps on about 3 December 2024.
The tenant reported problems with the heating in late June. The tenant considered the aging wood pellet heater was unsafe to use and wanted the heat pump to be replaced rather than a wall mounted radiant heater. The wood pellet heater was 20 It is common industry practice for reports to be amended without amending the date to account for landlords’ subsequent rectification of non-compliance with the standards. That appears to have occurred here because there is another version of the report that finds the hater compliant. _511681222 coming to the end of its useful life. However, the evidence does not establish it was not serviceable. Nonetheless, while the cheaper alternative of installing wall panel heaters may have met the HHS, they would have been more expensive to run and less efficient than a heat pump. The landlord should have promptly repaired the heat pump.
The tenant and his family suffered loss of the amenity of heat pump from about 30 June to the end of the cooler months to 31 October 2024 due to the landlord wishing to persist with the aging wood pellet fire and employ a less efficient form or wall mounted heater rather than replace the heat pump.
I find the landlord did not maintain and repair the heating to a reasonable state of repair. It is appropriate to award compensation. I calculate the tenant’s loss of amenity and increased power cost at $50.00 per week. The Tribunal amount orders the landlord to pay the tenant compensation of $885.71.
While the landlord’s response was suboptimal. I do not consider that there was a deliberate failure to maintain. Exemplary damages are not available. Even if it could be said the landlord acted intentionally, I consider exemplary damages would not be just in the circumstances because the landlord’s intended steps would have met the HHS. Moisture and mould in bottom bedroom
The tenant claimed his downstairs bedroom suffered from excessive moisture. However, the tenant was unable to identify the cause of the excessive moisture and prove the cause was due to the landlord breaching a relevant duty. That being so, the Tribunal is unable to assess whether landlord relevantly breached its obligations in that regard. Heated towel rail
The tenant submitted that the heated towel rail, which was installed on 19 April 2024, was, “Improperly installed in a wet area by an unqualified person, with unsafe wiring and incorrect placement height.”
The landlord rectified the tenant’s complaint on about 4 June 2025. _511681223
The tenant says a friend of the family who is an electrician saw the towel rail commented that it was dangerous, so the tenant and his family did not turn it on. However, the comments of the electrician friend are hearsay.
Without expert evidence on the issue, I am not able to assess the nature of the installation with any certainty and I decline to make a formal order on it Taps
The tenant submitted that, “Faulty basin taps remained unrepaired for approximately three years, impacting basic hygiene.
The tenant referred to an email dated 12 August 2023. Ms Zhang obtained a quote for basin mixers dated 30 August 2023 and the work was completed on about 22 September 2023.
I am not satisfied that the landlord did not attend to the taps within a reasonable time on the evidence. Toilet cistern valve
The cistern valve failed on one of the toilets.
The guarantor who is the tenant’s father is a plumber. He repaired the problem. However, the landlord did not pay the invoice for six months.
Despite the slow payment, the landlord did not fail to maintain the premises because the tenant helpfully completed the necessary work. Drinking water filter
The tenant claims the landlord failed to replace the drinking water filtering system’s filter.
The landlord says the device was not listed as a chattel, so it did not have to maintain it. The landlord did, however, replace the filter on one occasion.
The drinking water filtering system was a landlord chattel even if it was not listed as one. However, the premises’ drinking water was perfectly safe without filtering. Nor has the tenant proven that water from the filtered water system was not safe. _511681224
I am not satisfied the landlord was obliged to replace the filter. The filter is in the nature of a consumable item such as a light bulb. The tenant could have replaced the filter if he wished to. Nor has it been proven the water from the drinking water system was unsatisfactory. Shower door
The tenant claims, “Improper installation left heavy glass panels unsecured for approximately two years, posing serious injury risk”.
The tenant emailed Ms Zhang on 28 April 2022 about the shower door drooping on its hinges. Ms Zhang emailed the tenant on 3 May 2022 to advise she had forwarded the issue to “Plumber Jack”. Ms Zhang’s notes for repair and maintenance record a payment to “sunshine jack” of $368.00 in 2022.
Ms Zhang says another of the landlord’s contractors repaired the shower door on 28 November 2022 (Invoice from JL Property Services for $628.28 dated 29 November 2022) and then another on 20 September 2023 (Invoice from Auckland Showers & Frameless Glass Ltd for $465.00 for rehanging the shower door and replacing the brace).
The tenant considers the initial repairs were completed by a handyman and were substandard. However, the evidence does not establish that.
The tenant has not proven the landlord did not repair and maintain the shower door to a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. Toilet seats
The tenant claims, “All toilet seats were loose and unsafe throughout the tenancy”.
The tenant provided a copy of any email dated 17 November 2024: 21 Received with thanks, passed the message/photo to the certified plumber...
Ms Zhang records indicate her company paid for toilet seat work on 28 November 2024 in the sum of $299.00. 21 Tenant’s Memorandum page 138. _511681225
The tenant says he complained about the toilet seats on other occasions. Ms Zhang says she is confident that the landlord fixed the toilet seats within a reasonable time whenever it was made aware of the need for repair.
The tenant submitted the repair work was substandard. However, the evidence does not prove the claim on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to repair the loose toilet seats to a reasonable state within a reasonable time. Entry gates
The premises had an electric gate. The tenant claims the gates were faulty and “restricted access for over three years”.
Ms Zhang says the tenant reported a fault with the gates on 21 March 2024 and the next day she instructed a technician to attend to the problem, who attended on 25 March 2024.
The technician attended again on 7 May 2025. 22
It is likely the gates were wearing and aging and coming to the end of their useful lives. However, the contemporaneous records do not indicate the landlord failed to maintain the gates to a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. ` Exemplary damages
The landlord failed to replace the hot water cylinder in a timely way. The hot water cylinder only worked in “limp” mode resulting in the tenant and his family having no hot water or very limited amounts of hot water. The landlord firstly sought to replace the hot water cylinder with a much smaller capacity hot water cylinder that was not suitable for a family of five. Nor was the 246-litre cylinder a sufficient replacement.
The landlord’s intention was to save money. It was an inept attempt to economise. The landlord probably did not fully appreciate his obligations. The situation was made more difficult due to him losing confidence in his property manager, who was not highly experienced. The effect on the tenant and his family was to deprive them of adequate access to hot water for showering or bathing. It is in the tenant’s interest to award exemplary damages. It is also in the public interest to award exemplary 22 Landlord’s 521-page bundle p 195. _511681226 damages to deter this landlord and other landlords from taking half-measures when repairing or replacing a property’s basic infrastructure such as hot water cylinders.
The Tribunal sets exemplary damages at $1,800.00.

Did the premises meet building rules requirements?

The tenant claimed the premises did not comply with the Building Code because the main stairwell had no handrails. 23
The premises had extensive renovations completed a decade or so ago. To assess whether the building complied with the extant rules, the Tribunal would need to review the property file to assess compliance with the building consent’s terms, whether Council issued a Certificate of Code Compliance, and possibly, what the Code required at the time of construction. In addition, evidence from an expert in such matters would have assisted.
This kind of evidence not being available, the claim could not be progressed. Reduction of fixed term of the tenancy
The tenant included a claim for reduction of a fixed-term tenancy. However, while the tenancy began as a fixed term, it had rolled over to become a periodic tenancy. The tenancy was not for a fixed term, was ended by way of a tenancy order, and cannot be reduced. 24 Were the landlord’s notices retaliatory? The landlord’s first termination notice – 27 November 2024
In its decision dated 28 January 2025, the Tribunal found the landlord’s first termination notice dated 27 November 2024 was affected by the tenant issuing a 14- day notice for HHS and maintenance and repair issues, finding:
...Given the short time between the tenant’s 14 day notice and the landlord serving the 90 day notice, there is a strong inference that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant exercising his rights. 23 RTA s 45(1)(c); Building Code – Schedule D(1). 24 RTA s 66. _511681227
In this situation the evidential onus shifts to the landlord to show that there was a legitimate reason for the notice. The property manager submitted that the house is very well maintained but there has been an ongoing issue with the wiring that needs to be investigated. This will take 2-3 days and she is not confident the tenant will allow proper access for that to happen. She also said it is very hard to communicate with the tenant and that some of the communication with her has been insulting. The owner submitted that he instructed the property manager to give the 90 day notice because he wants to carry out a full examination of the tenancy premises so he can decide how much he will spend on maintenance. He said the house needs to be empty for this to happen.
I have considered the submissions and the relevant documents. It seems most likely to me that the landlord was partly motivated by the tenant exercising his right to maintenance and compliance with the HHS. This is because of the timing, and also because the landlord has been motivated by the tenant’s actions. There is an independent HHS report, so it seems unlikely to me the tenant has acted vexatiously. I find the landlord gave a retaliatory notice. The landlord’s second termination notice – 10 May 2025
That the landlord issued another notice about three months after the Tribunal’s decision, on 10 May 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
Ms Zhang’s covering email attaching the notice states: This notice is issued in accordance with section 51(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, because the landlord intends to move into the property and use it as their principal place of residence.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. 25
To be “motivated by” something, means the thing was a factor in the landlord’s decision to terminate. The alleged factor relied on does not have to be the only thing; it only needs to be a contributing factor.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. 26 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 25 RTA s 54(1). 26 RTA s 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. _511681228 the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. 27
A notice infected with a desire to “get back” at the tenant for exercising their rights against the landlord will be bad for being retaliatory. A notice of termination given for only genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory. 28
The tenant highlights that he had immediately emailed the landlord about maintenance issues just prior to the notice being issued. The tenant’s email was just one of many over the months. The tenant had many active claims against the landlord in the Tribunal. The tenant accused the property manager of lying. The parties did not trust one another. The relationship between the tenant, Ms Zhang and Mr Chen, the principal landlord had become dysfunctional due to fundamental disagreements and consequent stress.
The tenant in this case submits a relevant factor is the tenant exercising his rights to require the landlord to attend to maintenance, repair, and compliance with the HHS. A principal issue in this case is whether the landlord’s declared reason for giving termination was genuine and fair.
Mr Chen explained that he and his family had booked airline tickets to travel from China in November 2024, intending to return to the house but the Tribunal’s first order prevented them from moving in. Then after the Tribunal ordered termination by consent of the parties as at 9 January 2026, his family moved into the premises. However, Mr Chen says, people came to the property on 15 February 2026, asking whether they were tenants. Having just returned from China, Mr Chen and his family found the intrusion quite stressful.
Consequently, Mr Chen and his family did not remain in the house and do not currently live in New Zealand. Rosella re-let the premises to a family group, with that tenancy commencing on 31 March 2026.
Given that Mr Chen and his family did not continue to live in the premises for any length of time, I am not persuaded that his stated purpose for termination to use the premises as his principal place of residence was genuine. It is understandable that 27 RTA s 109(3). 28 For example, in Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA244/88, 3 November 1988, Judge Ongley upheld the Tribunal’s decision that a termination notice was not retaliatory. Judge Ongley was “quite satisfied that Mrs Woodman acted reasonably on the basis of the information known to her...I am not called upon to decide whether the complaints were justified, only to decide whether Mrs Woodman gave notice in retaliation or for genuine and fair reasons.” _511681229 he wished to end the tenancy due to the breakdown of his relationship with the tenant and dissatisfaction with the property manager’s management of the premises. It was a messy and stressful situation.
Nonetheless, the tenant’s exercise of his tenancy rights was an integral part of the parties’ relationship breakdown. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord’s notice was partly motivated by the tenant exercising his Residential Tenancies Act rights. Remedies
The landlord acted intentionally on both occasions.
I am satisfied it would be just to order exemplary damages, having regard to the landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the tenant, and the public interest. 29
The landlord was desperate to end the tenancy and resorted to a reason which lacked validity. The notice made the tenant feel insecure in the tenancy. It is in the tenant’s interest to order exemplary damages. There is a strong public interest it the Tribunal firmly deterring landlords’ actions such as this that undermine tenants’ security of tenure.
For the first retaliatory notice, I order exemplary damages of $1,625.00.
For the second retaliatory notice, I order exemplary damages $3,250.00. The Tribunal had already found the first notice retaliatory. I consider the landlord’s stated reason for termination was not genuine. The public interest calls for a firmer response for repeated breaches and breaches that involve disingenuous reasons.
I have considered whether the Tribunal should order compensation. The tenant has not provided medical evidence to prove he was impacted by the retaliatory notices. While the circumstances became stressful for the tenant and the notices would have contributed to that, on the evidence, general damages are warranted. The tenant’s later claims
I did not find the tenant’s latterly added claims raised valid issues capable of decision in the Tribunal. 29 RTA s 109(3). _511681230
The tenant alleges the landlord misrepresented the grounds of termination at the hearing at which the Tribunal ordered the termination of the tenancy by consent. However, that was not an active factor in the Tribunal’s decision which was in any event by consent.
The tenant submits a guarantor was coerced into agreeing to termination in 90 days. However, although the landlord keenly wanted the tenancy to end and claimed he and his family needed the premises for their principal residence, the landlord’s submissions at the hearing did not amount to coercion.
The tenant alleges the landlord unreasonably delayed release of the bond. However, it is usual practice for the bond to be retained until the Tribunal final determines disputes. Nor does the Act require landlords to consent to the bond being released.
By way of “counterclaim”, the tenant claims the landlord improperly transferred the management of the tenancy to Rosella. 30 However, Mr Chen had become dissatisfied with Jijia’s services. He was perfectly entitled to end his agency agreement with Jijia and instruct Rosella. Nor did Mr Chen changing to a more experienced property manager prejudice the tenant.
These claims are dismissed. Filing fees
The tenant filed three applications.
The landlord filed two applications.
The tenant succeeded in many of its claims. The landlord succeeded in its rent arears claim, albeit the tenant accepted the arrears prior to the hearing.
The Tribunal orders the landlord to reimburse the tenant $54.00 towards the tenant’s filing fees. 31 Bond
The balance of the bond it to be returned to the tenant. 30 The tenant relied on RTA ss 13, 16, and 47. 31 RTA s 102(4)(b). _511681231 Non-publication
The tenant seeks an order for non-publication.
The tenant substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 32
The Tribunal orders non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details. The identifying details include the guarantors’ name because they are the tenant’s parents and have the same surname so publication of their names would naturally identify the tenant. Joint and several liability
Mr Chen as principal is liable to the tenant for the full amount ordered in this decision.
Jijia as Mr Chen’s agent is jointly and severally liable with Mr Chen in the amount of $17,855.50.
Rosella as Mr Chen’s agent’s joint liability with Mr Chen is $825.00.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5116812 — Exemplary damages

Tenancy Tribunal case 5116812 — Exemplary damages

Order

Reasons

Was the rent substantially more than market rent?

What is the market rent for the premises?

Was the rent substantially above the market value and what should the rent be?

Did the landlord breach the HHS?

Did the premises meet building rules requirements?

Order

Reasons

Was the rent substantially more than market rent?

What is the market rent for the premises?

Was the rent substantially above the market value and what should the rent be?

Did the landlord breach the HHS?

Did the premises meet building rules requirements?