What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5123008 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,177.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 5123008?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5123008?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5123008?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12330699-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5123008 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,177.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 5123008?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5123008?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5123008?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12330699-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

157A New Windsor Road, New Windsor, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5123008 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5123008 — net $1,177.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages for failure to respond to written request to make alterations etc	$300.00	Exemplary damages for failure to respond to written request to make alterations etc
Exemplary damages for failure to provide a home free from dampness	$750.00	Exemplary damages for failure to provide a home free from dampness
Compensation for failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness	$100.00	Compensation for failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,177.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,177.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5123008 — net $1,177.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages for failure to respond to written request to make alterations etc	$300.00	Exemplary damages for failure to respond to written request to make alterations etc
Exemplary damages for failure to provide a home free from dampness	$750.00	Exemplary damages for failure to provide a home free from dampness
Compensation for failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness	$100.00	Compensation for failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,177.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,177.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,177.00 immediately.
The tenant’s claims that the landlord: breached section 42A(7) of the RTA by failing to provide a written response to the tenant’s request to make minor alterations: breached section 45(1)(c) of the RTA by failing to provide a home free from dampness; breached section 19(1) of the RTA by failing to lodge the bond within the required timeframe; and breached section 16A(1) of the RTA by failing to appoint an agent while out of New Zealand for a consecutive period of 21 days, are upheld.
The tenant’s applications that: the notice to terminate the tenancy was not genuine and was retaliatory and that the landlord failed to maintain the premises are dismissed.

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. The hearing for this matter took place on 28 August 2025 at the Auckland District Court.
The landlord had asked to be represented at the hearing by their daughter. Section 93(2) of the RTA provides that parties may be represented at a hearing in limited circumstances including where the amount in dispute exceeds $6,000. The tenant’s claim exceeds that amount, and the landlord was therefore permitted to be represented by their daughter, Saakhi Hedge.
The tenant’s claims were set out in an Order following the case management conference of 23 April 2025.
At the hearing, the tenant withdrew the claim that she had not been advised that Kainga Ora would be undertaking development next to the premises, the claim for charging for outgoings that were not exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises, and the claim for the landlord failing to provide notice when accessing the premises to garden and mow the lawn. The tenant also said that the only claims in respect of failing to maintain he premises was mould and failure to provide curtains. This left the following claims: a. Unlawful termination, (Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) (section 60AA); b. Retaliatory notice (given on 4 October 2024) (RTA section 54); c. Failing to respond to request to make minor alterations (RTA section 42A(7)); d. Failure to maintain the premises (RTA section 45); (mould, curtains and curtain rails not provided); e. Failure to provide the premises reasonably clean and tidy (RTA section 45); f. Bond not lodged within 23 days (RTA section 19(1)); and g. Landlord not appointing agent when out of the country (RTA section 16).
During the hearing, the tenant made reference to an additional claim for failure to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms & Insulation) Regulations 2016. While this claim was discussed at the hearing, it was not specified in the claim form or in the Order following the case management conference. I have not made a finding in regard to this claim. Relevant legal considerations:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Was the reason for the termination notice genuine and, if not, was it retaliatory?

On 04 October 2024, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy. The tenant claims the notice was not genuine and was retaliatory. The tenant is seeking $3,000 in exemplary damages and $4,000 as compensation for stress.
Section 60AA of the RTA provides: A landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant or apply or purport to apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to give the notice or to make the application.
Section 60AA and schedule 1A of the RTA provide that giving a termination notice which a landlord is not entitled to give is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $6,500.00 can be awarded.
Section 54(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
Section 54(2) and schedule 1A of the RTA provide that 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.
On 13 September the tenant sent a message to the landlord saying that the previous shower fix had been a “shoddy job and not to NZ code”. The tenant believes that the landlord was annoyed and that this message was the final straw. The tenant said she could see the landlord was annoyed because they had asked her to pay half of the cost to repair the shower.
The tenant says that while the shower was being fixed, they could not use it for three days and the landlord had not told her that the shower would be unusable. The tenant said that the landlord did not tell her that she would not be able to use the shower because the landlord was irritated with her complaint about the shower and had asked the tenant to pay half.
On 26 September 2024 the tenant sent a further message to the landlord. In this message, the tenant that a healthy homes assessment report had been completed which set out required repairs to the premises. In this message, the tenant also asked for consent to install curtains in the living room.
On or about 27 September 2025, the tenant sent a further message to the landlord asking the landlord if she would like e a copy of the healthy homes report.
On 04 October 2024, the landlord gave the tenant a 63-day notice ending the tenancy. The reason for the notice was said to be because a family member would be moving into the premises.
The landlord said that their daughter did move into the premises after she finished University in November. The landlord said that the intention was for their daughter to live in the premises long term. However, the landlord said that their daughter found the house unsuitable because of its size and the land behind the house being empty. The landlord said at the same time they needed someone to assist transporting their younger daughter, so it suited them for their daughter to move home at that time.
The landlord said they put the house on the market on 23 December 2025. The landlord said that at the time they put the house on the market they had already had conversations with an agent who had said if you are considering putting your house on the market you should do so before house prices drop.
The landlord said they accepted an offer for sale of the premises and it settled after 19 March 2025. The landlord says it was not their intention to sell the house when they issued the notice.
The tenant says that the landlord’s daughter did not move into the premises. However, she did not have any evidence to support this.
At the time the landlord gave notice, section 51 of the RTA provided that: (1) A landlord could terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 63 days’ notice if (a) the owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or a member of the owner’s family; or
A longer notice was required if the landlord intended to sell the house. Subsection 50(2) of the RTA provides that: A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice if— (a) the premises are to be put on the market by the owner within 90 days after the termination date for the purposes of sale or other disposition; or ...
The landlord’s daughter did not live in the premises for 90 days. However, the test is not whether the family member lives in the premises for that period of time but whether, at the time of giving notice, that is the intention. It is, of course, impossible to know for certain the intention of the landlord at the time they gave the notice. Factors that indicate the notice was not genuine include that: a. Within a period of approximately 3 weeks of the notice being given the tenant had: notified the landlord of the need for repairs to the shower, criticised the workmanship for the previous shower repair and notified the landlord that a healthy homes report had been prepared and repairs were needed to the premises; b. The landlord’s daughter only resided at the premises for a short period of time.
Factors that indicate that the notice was genuine include: c. The landlord did not re-let the premises; d. The landlord sold the premises. As set out above, the landlord could have terminated the tenancy because the landlord intended to put the premises on the market on 90 days’ notice.
While it is finely balanced, this is the tenant’s claim to prove. I accept that the landlord’s daughter did reside in the premises, albeit for a short period of time. I find it difficult to believe that the landlord would go to the trouble of moving their daughter into the premises and lying about the reason for the termination of the tenancy to save 27 days’ notice.
The claim that the notice was not genuine and that it was retaliatory are dismissed. Did the landlord fail to respond to the tenant’s written request to make alterations to the premises within the stipulated timeframe?
Section 42A(1) of the RTA provides that a “... landlord must not unreasonably withhold consent for a fixture, renovation, alteration or addition”. Subsection 42A(3) provides that where a tenant makes a written request for consent for an alteration etc the landlord must provide a written response indicating whether or not the landlord considers the request to be minor or not within 21 days. Section 43B provides that a landlord must not withhold consent for a minor change.
Section 42A(7) and schedule 1A of the RTA provide that failing to respond to a written request seeking consent for an alteration etc is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages of up to $1500.00.
The tenant referred to a text message of 26 September 2024 where she asks for consent to install curtains and curtain rods. This was a written request, and the landlord was obliged to provide a response indicating whether she considered the requested alterations to be minor or not no later than 18 October 2024.
The tenant said the landlord did not respond to this message and on 03 October 2024 she sent a further message asking again for the consent. The tenant said the landlord came back to her that day saying she would discuss it with her husband.
The landlord said that they did not respond to the consent because when the request for consent was made, they had decided that they would end the tenancy so that their daughter could move into the premises. The landlord said they did not want the tenant to go to the trouble of installing the curtains only for the tenancy to end shortly after.
Both parties agree that there was a telephone conversation on 04 October where the tenant was told that the reason the landlord had not responded to the request for consent was because the landlord was considering terminating the tenancy. The landlord said they also told the tenant during the call that they did not give consent. The tenant says that they did not do so.
The tenant also raised a request for curtains she made verbally at the start of the tenancy. However, section 42A(1) does not require a landlord to respond to a verbal request.
I find that the landlord failed to comply with section 42A and has therefore committed an unlawful act.
The tenant is seeking exemplary damages of $1500.00.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the RTA. This section provides that damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
I accept that the landlord told the tenant that consent was not given during the 04 October 2025 telephone call. However, what they were required to do (in writing) was to advise whether they considered the request to be minor or not. If minor, the landlord could not have withheld consent. I find that the landlord was confused as to their obligations under the RTA. This does not mean that the failure was not intentional.
In T.M.T New Zealand Limited Trading as Strata Property Management v Kirk Liam Sweeney and Anne-mette Holmgard Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182. In that case the landlord had failed to provide an insurance and healthy homes compliance statement. The Court held that: The obligation to provide these documents are fundamental obligations on landlords of which it appears Mr Hu was not fully aware despite their being included in the Act since 2016 and 2019 respectively. Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequence for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.
The Court upheld the Tribunal’s order of $200.00 exemplary damages for the failure in that case.
I find that the landlord’s failure to comply with section 42A of the RTA did have an impact on the tenant. The tenant was anxious to have the curtains put up as she believed they would have a positive impact on the healthiness of the home. This was of concern to her because one of her children had healthy issues. I believe it was frustrating for the tenant to have to chase the landlord for a response and then not to get a written response as required by the RTA.
However, I also find that the tenant did not raise the issue of the curtains again because this issue was superseded by the termination of the tenancy.
The public has an interest in landlords complying with their legal obligations.
In these circumstances, I consider it is just to make an award of $300.00. Did the landlord breach section 45 of the RTA by failing to provide a home free from dampness?
The tenancy started before 1 July 2021. Therefore, the healthy homes standards did not apply. That is not the end of the matter because section 45(1)(c) of the RTA provides that the landlord shall: ... comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises; and ...
Of relevance to section 45(1)(c) above is the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (the “1947 Regulations”). Regulation 15 of the 1947 Regulations provides that every house shall be free from dampness.
On a number of occasions, the Tribunal, along with the District Court, have recognised that mould and condensation are difficult issues and that it is often not easy to point to a single cause or allocate responsibility to one party only when mould is present.
In Warwick Todd Ltd v Tapper TT1381/02, Christchurch, 14/089/2002, the Tribunal found that a tenant can be responsible for mould problems if they fail to air and heat premises sufficiently, and a landlord can be responsible if they do not provide sufficient means to air and heat the premises or if the premises are damp.
In Repia v Walsh Trust DC Waitakere, CIV-2011-090-00056, 27 April 2011, the District Court recognised that the presence of mould in a property can be caused by the state of the premises or a lack of ventilation. The fact that some mould was in the house is not enough to show that it was not in a reasonable state of repair.
That said, where there is a need for repair, the tenant also has obligations under the RTA. Section 40(1)(d) of the RTA provides that the tenant must: Notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises or of the need for any repairs.
In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010, the District Court held: ... 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.
The tenant said mould was present at the start of the tenancy on the ceiling in the master bedroom. The tenant said that after the floods at the end of January the mould increased because water had leaked through the roof. The tenant said she raised the issue about the leaks with the landlord at that point.
The tenant said she did not believe that the landlord fixed the issue within a reasonably period of time. The tenant said the roof was not fixed until May.
The landlord said tradespeople were very busy at that time and they needed to find someone who worked with roof tiles.
The landlord was asked if they considered reducing the tenant’s rent while the roof was leaking. The landlord said they did not do so but pointed out that they did not increase the rent at any time during the tenancy. The landlord also said it was only an issue when it rained.
The tenant said that after the roof was fixed the mould did not go away. The tenant said she was heating the home, using a dehumidifier and ventilating the premises by opening windows. The tenant said she did not advise the landlord of this.
The landlord said that when the tenant complained of the mould in the bedroom, they cleaned the mould and repainted it on a weekend when the tenant was out of town.
I find that the landlord reasonably believed that after they cleaned the premises, the mould issue was resolved. However, on or about 26 September 2024 the landlord was made aware that a healthy homes report had been provided to the tenant which identified work needing to be done. If the landlord had asked for a copy of the report it would have seen that there were issues with mould and the recommendations included fixing the ventilation in the kitchen and the bathroom that were not working, fixing damage to the ceiling and wall, and repairing / replacing window latches.
The landlord said that they did not ask to see the report because they believed the healthy homes standards did not apply to the premises at the time and that the work was recommendations only.
The healthy homes standards did not apply to the premises at that time. However, the landlord was obliged to provide the premises free from dampness. I find that by advising the landlord that a report had been provided that contained recommendations, the landlord was on notice and should have investigated at that point.
I find that the landlord failed to maintain the premises. However, this was only for a short period as it would have taken some time to remedy the issues and the tenancy ended on 15 November 2025.
The tenant is claiming $2500 in exemplary damages. As set out above at paragraph 39 I am required to consider a number of factors before making an award for exemplary damages. I find that the landlord did not say she wanted a copy of the healthy homes report because she believed the healthy homes requirement did not apply to the premises at that time. The landlord was not aware of her obligations to provide a home free from dampness. However, as set out at paragraph 41 above, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
I find that the landlord’s failure to investigate the issue had a significant impact on the tenant. The tenant’s daughter was suffering from health issues and the tenant believed that the poor condition of the home was having a negative impact on her daughter’s health.
Given the risk to public health that damp homes pose, the public has a strong interest in landlord’s complying with the requirement to provide homes free from dampness.
I find that the landlord deliberately turned a blind eye to the report. However, the maximum amount of exemplary damages should only be made for the worst cases. This is not one of the worst cases.
I award $750 in exemplary damages. In making this award I have also taken into account that given that the tenancy terminated in mid-November, the tenant and her family would only have benefited from any repairs for a short time.

Did the tenant fail to maintain the premises by not providing curtains?

There is no specific legal obligation for a landlord to provide curtains. The tenant claims that the landlord’s failure to provide curtains was a breach of the obligation at section 45(1)(b) of the RTA to: 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; ...
I disagree. I do not consider that not providing curtains amounts to a breach of section 45.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to provide a home in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

Section 45(1)(a) of the RTA provides that a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
The tenant said she paid $100 for a cleaner to clean the premises at the start of the tenancy and is claiming this sum. The invoice has been provided. The landlord pointed out that the receipt is dated June however the tenant moved in in April. The tenant said the cleaning was carried out shortly after she moved in but it took the cleaner a long time to drop off the invoice.
The tenant said the cleaner was necessary to clean the mould off the blinds, the extractor fans, the floors and benchtops.
The landlord says that the house was provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord said they missed the extractor fan but that they offered to clean it and the tenant said no. The tenant said the landlord did not offer to clean the extractor fan.
Neither party has provided photographs of the premises at the start of the tenancy. The written evidence shows that the tenant did raise her concerns regarding lack of cleanliness of the premises. I find that the landlord did fail to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The tenant is seeking compensation for the cleaning cost of $100. This sum is awarded.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond within the required timeframe?

The tenant claims the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
Section 19(1) of the RTA provides that a landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. (See section 19(2) and schedule 1A of the RTA.)
The tenant said she paid the bond before the tenancy started on 25 April 2021 but it was not lodged with the Bond Centre until 06 April 2022.
The landlord agrees that the bond was paid late and says it was an administrative error. The landlord said she thought she had posted the bond to the Bond Centre at the time but noticed it in her drawer when the tenant paid an additional week in April 2022. The landlord said she immediately lodged the bond and pointed out to the tenant she had overpaid the bond.
I find that the landlord did breach section 19(1) of the RTA by failing to lodge the bond. During the hearing, the tenant said she is not seeking compensation or exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond.
This claim is upheld. Did the landlord breach section 16A(1) of the RTA by failing to appoint an agent when out of New Zealand?
The tenant claims that the landlord has been overseas for longer than the RTA permits without appointing an agent. The tenant is seeking $500 in exemplary damages.
Section 16A(1) of the RTA provides that a landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. (See section 16A(6) and schedule 1A of the RTA.)
Both parties agree that the landlord was out of New Zealand from 12 December 2022 until 05 January 2023. The landlord said that they had asked their builder to be a point of contact for the tenant and provided the tenant with the builder’s email address and phone number. The tenant disagrees.
In any event, provision of this information is not sufficient. Subsection 16(4) of the RTA provides that the landlord must also provide the agent’s address and address for service and notify the Bond Centre.
As the landlord has not appointed an agent, they have committed an unlawful act. The tenant seeks exemplary damages of $500. However, exemplary damages are not available because the claim was lodged over 12 months after the failure occurred. The filing fee:
The tenant has not wholly succeeded with the claim. However, I consider she has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5123008 — Exemplary damages at 157A New Windsor Road, New Windsor, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5123008 — Exemplary damages at 157A New Windsor Road, New Windsor, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the reason for the termination notice genuine and, if not, was it retaliatory?

Did the tenant fail to maintain the premises by not providing curtains?

Did the landlord fail to provide a home in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond within the required timeframe?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the reason for the termination notice genuine and, if not, was it retaliatory?

Did the tenant fail to maintain the premises by not providing curtains?

Did the landlord fail to provide a home in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond within the required timeframe?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions