What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5146822 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5146822?

Compensation: Loss Of Full Enjoyment: $2,800.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $54.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146822?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146822?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12289260-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5146822 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5146822?

Compensation: Loss Of Full Enjoyment: $2,800.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $54.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146822?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146822?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12289260-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

502 Great North Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5146822 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5146822 — net $5,854.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of full enjoyment	$2,800.00	Loss of full enjoyment
Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS	$1,500.00	Breach of HHS
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$1,500.00	Unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement x 2	$54.00	Filing fee reimbursement x 2
Net award	$5,854.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,854.00

Both parties attended the hearing on 23 May 2025. Background 5133739, 51468222

The premises consisted of a three-bedroom, old-style townhouse within a block of four flats. One of the bedrooms was located on the lower level, featuring French doors opening to the street, along with a small foyer and laundry under the stairs. The remainder of the living space was situated upstairs.

The tenancy commenced on 1 November 2023. [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] were the two named tenants.

From January 2024, [Tenant 3] also began residing at the premises.

On 25 June 2024, [Tenant 1] vacated the premises.

On 26 June 2024, [Tenant 3] was formally added to the tenancy agreement, making him and [Tenant 2] the two named tenants.

One week later, [Tenant 2] also vacated the premises.

On 2 August 2024, [Tenant 3] vacated the premises, thereby ending the tenancy.

Application 5133739 was submitted by the first two tenants, while application 5146822 was submitted by the latter two tenants.

As both applications relate to claims against the same landlord covering the same tenancy period, I make the order naming all three tenants as the applicants. The awarded amount may be apportioned among the tenants as they see fit. Claims

The tenants claimed for compensation and exemplary damages for loss of use, breach of quiet enjoyment, unlawful entry, breach of Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”), failure to lodge the bond, and the tenancy being terminated in retaliation. Loss of use and breach of quiet enjoyment

Initially, there were no issues with the premises. Problems began when tenants were first notified of planned renovations.

On 12 March 2024, the tenants were informed that scaffolding would be erected for guttering work on the entire building. They were initially told the work would take approximately one week.

After the initial work, tenants were notified of further work, including exterior painting and window assessments for repairs by the landlord.

This work continued for over three months. 5133739, 51468223

Safety concerns were raised regarding the scaffolding, but the primary issue for the tenants was builders frequently leaving tools and debris inside the property — including sawdust on clean laundry and power tools on furniture and bedding. Builders entered without notice and caused damage such as a punctured tyre and scratched vehicle paint. Window repairs took over a month, leaving gaps and unsecured openings during winter.

Scaffolding was repeatedly erected and removed without notice, causing significant noise and inconvenience. Builders also accessed the property through unsecured windows while tenants were away.

A skylight was cracked by a painter on the roof, leading to water leaks during rain. Builders left tools and tarpaulins in the hallway for several days.

The tenants’ parking areas were blocked, and a cherry picker was used to access the roof without prior notice.

Work sometimes began at 6:00 pm and continued until 8:00 pm, including weekends. Power tools were used without drop sheets.

The tenants provided photos and message threads to substantiate the difficulties they experienced during this period.

No rent reduction or compensation was offered by the landlord. The landlord provided a bottle of wine and arranged for cleaners on one occasion — 2 June 2024.

Invoices show that scaffolding was in place from 13 March 2024 until 10 May 2024. The cherry picker was used on 11 June 2024, with scaffolding continuing after that date.

The tenants calculated this period as lasting 14 weeks, which I accept as accurate.

The landlord disputed the early and late hours of the work; however, I accept the tenants’ evidence, as the landlord was not physically present during much of the period.

While I accept that necessary maintenance was being carried out, I am satisfied that the extent and nature of the repair work resulted in a loss of use of the premises and significantly interfered with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment.

I order the landlord to compensate the tenants a total of $2,800.00, calculated at $200.00 per week over 14 weeks.

I do not find the breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment to be intentional or to the level of harassment. Accordingly, I do not award exemplary damages on this ground. 5133739, 51468224 Unlawful entry

The tenants claim that the landlord entered the premises without consent or the required notice.

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

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

On 7 May 2024, the landlord knocked on the bedroom door or window to wake the tenant in order to gain access to the premises. The tenant provided evidence in the form of a text message stating: “omg trying to sleep and the landlady came in.”

On 11 June 2024, a builder used a power tool to access a downstairs bedroom. A tenant intervened, but the builder dismissed the concern with laughter. Although the property manager later informed the tenant that the builder had been dismissed, the same builder returned the following day.

Builders frequently accessed the interior of the premises when tenants were not home. On one occasion, the downstairs bedroom door was left wide open to the street, with the tenant’s daughter’s laptop left exposed on the bed.

On 28 June 2024, the male tenant returned home from work and fell asleep in the upstairs lounge. At approximately 5:00 pm, he was awoken by the landlord tugging on his toe. The landlord claimed she had texted him an hour earlier. The tenant angrily informed her that she was not permitted to be inside the house.

The landlord stated she was there to complete a small job and that a builder would be arriving. Although the tenant said no, builders arrived 15 minutes later.

The landlord disputed most of the unlawful entry claims but admitted to entering the upstairs area on 3 May 2024, stating she was there to drop off a bottle of wine while the tenants were not home.

She claimed the house was unlocked and that she knocked before calling out multiple times. She then entered and left the wine on the kitchen counter, explaining that she wanted to place it somewhere visible rather than on the porch.

The tenants disputed that the front door had been left unlocked.

I accept the tenants’ evidence and find that the landlord entered the premises unlawfully. This constitutes an unlawful act. 5133739, 51468225

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that doing so would be just, taking into account the party’s intent, the effect of the act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I find that the landlord intentionally entered the premises without lawful authority and failed to exercise the care expected to ensure compliance with the law. This conduct caused significant discomfort and privacy breaches for the tenants. There is a strong public interest in denouncing such behaviour.

I order the landlord to pay the tenants $1,500.00 in exemplary damages. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards

The tenants claim that the premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).

A breach of this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

For tenancies that commenced or were renewed between 28 August 2022 and 2 March 2025, compliance with HHS was required within 120 days of the tenancy start date. Therefore, the premises was required to be compliant from 29 February 2024.

The premises was assessed for HHS compliance on 27 February 2024. At that time, it failed in the areas of moisture and drainage, insulation, heating, and draught stopping. The kitchen ventilation was also non-compliant. Only the bathroom and windows were compliant at the time of the initial assessment.

When the premises was reassessed on 23 August 2024, exemptions were granted for moisture and drainage and underfloor insulation. Extractor fans for the kitchen and bathroom were found to be either exempt or compliant. However, heating and draught stopping remained non-compliant.

This confirms that the premises was not compliant with HHS during the tenancy.

Non-compliance with HHS is an unlawful act.

HHS has been in force since 2019, although applicable compliance dates have varied depending on tenancy type.

It appears that work on the premises began in March 2024, even though the property was required to be compliant with HHS from February 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord assessed or ensured compliance in advance of the due date. 5133739, 51468226

I find that this was an intentional failure, resulting in the tenants living in a non- compliant property. The tenants were entitled to live in an HHS-compliant home from the end of February 2024 through to the end of the tenancy. Instead, they endured both construction disruptions and non-compliance. There is strong public interest in denouncing such conduct.

I order the landlord to pay the tenants $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. Bond not being lodged

The tenants claimed that the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required timeframe.

A landlord must lodge any bond payment with the Bond Centre within 23 working days of receiving it. See section 19(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 may be awarded. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The bond for the original tenancy was lodged with the Bond Centre in the names of the first two tenants. However, it is correct that the bond for the final period of the tenancy — when only the last tenant remained — was not lodged. This final tenancy lasted for 26 working days.

The landlord explained that the bond could not be lodged because it had the previous tenant’s signature and the tenancy was expected to end shortly thereafter, in late July or early August 2024.

In the circumstances, I do not find sufficient public interest in denouncing this failure, given the brief duration of the final tenancy and the impending termination.

I dismiss this claim. Termination in relation

The tenants claimed that the tenancy was terminated in retaliation for raising concerns about the landlord’s unlawful entry and for indicating an intention to apply to the Tenancy Tribunal.

However, the evidence shows that one of the tenants formally issued a notice to terminate the tenancy, which then concluded for the remaining tenant as well. Therefore, this was not a case of the landlord terminating the tenancy; rather, it was terminated by the tenant. 5133739, 51468227

The claim for retaliatory termination is dismissed. Filing fee reimbursement

As the tenants have substantially succeeded in their claim, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fees.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5146822 — net $5,854.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of full enjoyment	$2,800.00	Loss of full enjoyment
Exemplary damages: Breach of HHS	$1,500.00	Breach of HHS
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$1,500.00	Unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement x 2	$54.00	Filing fee reimbursement x 2
Net award	$5,854.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,854.00