What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5183378 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 5183378?

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 5183378?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5183378?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13057205-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5183378 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 5183378?

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 5183378?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5183378?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13057205-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5183378 — Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants and Landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The landlord] must pay [The tenants] $5,914.00 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 17 and 18 November 2025. The landlord was represented at the hearing by [lawyer’s name suppressed] and supported by his daughter. The tenants were self-represented.
The tenants have applied for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the end of the hearing, the tenants tried to add additional claims that were not in their application. The landlord did not agree to these being heard. They were breach of quiet enjoyment and lost belongings.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Most of the claims in the landlord’s application 5272159 were heard on 18 June 2025. At the 17 November 2025 hearing, the landlord confirmed that it withdrew its claims for the outstanding water and power and the failure to quit the premises. The landlord stated that it was withdrawing these claims to allow the Tribunal to focus on the many tenants’ claims.

EVIDENTIAL ISSUES

The landlord raised concerns about some recordings submitted by the tenants late that they wished to be accepted into evidence.
Initially the landlord objected to the Tribunal accepting this late evidence on 14 November 2025 by memorandum.
At the hearing, the landlord confirmed that its counsel had listened to the recordings from tenants and withdrew their objection to these recordings being accepted into evidence.
The Tribunal also accepted into evidence: a. The the text messages from [name suppressed] in response to evidence the landlord had submitted in an affidavit 6 days prior; and b. A letter from a clinical psychologist dated 7 October 2025 stating that the tenants had not had sufficient time to prepare their evidence to prove their claims due to the male tenant’s ADHD diagnosis required more time than 7 working days prior to the hearings to file late evidence.
The Tribunal did not accept the following late evidence: a. Video evidence the tenants claim the landlord had asked for, of the external condition of the house and the builder talking about repair maintenance issues. The tenants say they had these videos for months but did not understand if they were relevant so did not try to file this evidence until just before the hearing. There was no justifiable explanation for this lengthy delay in filing this evidence. b. A letter from tenancy services regarding a OIA information from its investigations team. This information was received by the tenants on 28 May 2025, and could have been submitted within the required timeframe but was no. There was no justifiable explanation for this lengthy delay in filing this evidence. Background
The tenancy commenced on 2 January 2025, although the landlord says the tenants did not move in fully until 9 January 2025 and that payment of rent started from 9 January 2025.
The tenancy was for a fixed term that was due to end on 2 January 2026.
In my 18 June 2025 Order, I find that the tenancy commenced on 9 January 2025 and ended on 27 April 2025. The entire tenancy was 15 weeks 3 days.
The house is around 80 years old and the tenants were made aware when they took the tenancy, that the property had not had tenants in it for a few years , and that it required some repairs and maintenance over the coming months, some of which the landlord intended to do himself and some more specialist work that he would engage a licensed building practitioner to undertake.
The landlord stated that he offered the tenancy to the tenants, who had approached him on 30 December 2024 desperate for a place to live, on this understanding. He says they accepted the tenancy on this understanding. The tenants refuted this and said that they issued their first 14-day notice to the landlord at the start of the tenancy and that this reflects their understanding that all of this work would be completed in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances.
Between 2 and 7 January 2025, the landlord undertook interior painting and some remedial work at the property.
Around 22 January 2025, the landlord undertook more remedial work and began making enquiries about getting quotes for more repair and maintenance work and to get the premise compliant with the healthy homes’ standards. These quotes included roof replacement, building work and maintenance.
On 3 February 2025, Habitat for Humanity carried out a healthy homes’ inspection.
Around 4 February 2025 and again on 12-14 February 2025 the first quotes were obtained but the builder and painter were either unsuitable or unavailable to commence the work in a reasonable timeframe.
On 7 March 2025, [company name suppressed] were engaged and it initially gave the landlord a quote for $11,087.00 to instal new guttering, spouting and some building/repair works. At the same time the landlord got a quote from [name suppressed] for $22,000.00, including GST, to install a new roof.
Once [name suppressed] started work on 18 March 2025, he identified hidden defects and stopped work.
On 21 March 2025, [company name suppressed] sent the landlord a letter informing him that the house had structural faults, and the cost of remediation was going to be significantly more than expected. The expected cost was around $197,000.00 with no allowance for contingencies or consent or planning.
The landlord confirmed that he is retired, he and his partner have no source of income other than the government superannuation, and his only other asset is the house he and his partner live in. He does not have the savings to undertake the level of remediation the rental premise will require to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the rental premise.
On 22 March 2025, the landlord contacted the tenants with the intention of having a discussion to see if they could end the tenancy on mutually agreed terms, as he could not afford the repairs, but was unable to reach the tenants.
On 25 March 2025, the landlord applied to the Tribunal to end the tenancy under s66 of the RTA “Reduction of fixed term tenancy” because of an unforeseen change in the landlord’s circumstances and that the severe hardship which the landlord would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the tenants would suffer if the term were reduced.
On 26 March 2025, the landlord received an Insanitary Building Notice (IBN) from Auckland Council (AC). The landlord does not know who notified AC. The requirement was to carry out building works under the IBN by 26 March 2025.
Following 26 March 2025, the landlord continued completing various remedial works to try to ensure his obligations under the RTA were met, including the healthy homes standards. However, he could not afford to have the significant structural work completed at the minimum cost of $197,000.00.
On 17 April 2025, AC issued a Restricted Entry IBN. The IBN was upgraded meaning that no person was allowed to remain in the property unless undertaking inspection, repairs or demolition work. Hurricane fencing was to be erected by 28 April 2025. The requirements to carry out the building work under the Restricted Entry IBN was by 17 June 2025. The landlord was informed that failure to have the remedial work undertaken or the building demolished could result in a $300,000.00 fine and/or prosecution.
On 18 April 2025, the landlord made the hard decision to have the house demolished, as he has insufficient funds to address the defects in the Restricted Entry IBN.
The landlord, through his lawyer, issued the tenants with a 7-day notice terminating the tenancy under s59/59A of the RTA, notifying them of the intention to demolish the property. The tenancy was to end on 27 April 2025.
On 24 April 2025, the tenants emailed the landlord’s daughter saying they do not accept the termination notice but will abide by the requirements of the Restricted Entry IBN.
The tenants confirmed they vacated the premise on 27 April 2025 and went into emergency housing and moved into temporary Baptist accommodation on 21 May 2025. They looked for permanent accommodation and had to pay for storage for some of their belongings and the male tenant’s business equipment.
The tenants stated they refused to bring the tenancy to an end because they wanted the landlord to fix the rental premise, pay for temporary accommodation for them while he did that, and they did not accept he did not have the funds to carry out the required remediation work in the timeframe the AC has specified in the Restricted Entry IBN.
The landlord had no idea when he allowed the tenants to rent a premise he had not advertised for rent, and that had not had a tenant in it for over 2 years, that the rental premise did not comply with s121 of the Building Act 2004, which defines the rental premise as a dangerous building that in the ordinary course of events is likely to cause injury or death to persons in it or to persons on other property or damage to other property. It also refers to advice from a territorial authority, such as AC, should be sought and due regard given to the advice.
The house was demolished as the landlord could not afford the remediation costs or to take the risk of being fined or imprisoned if he had not complied with the AC Restricted Entry IBN.
The landlord has asked the Tribunal to consider: a. The landlord received $6,890.00 in rent from the tenants in the 15 week and 3-day tenancy (9 January 2025 to 27 April 2025); b. The landlord did not advertise the house for rent. It had not been rented for over two years and he knew it required a lot of repair and maintenance work. Out of a desire to give, what he was told were desperate tenants, somewhere to live when they were about to be homeless in 12 days, he let the tenants come to look at the premise with his prior tenant, so they knew how much repair and maintenance work needed to be done on it and could make a decision about whether the house would meet their and their family’s needs before deciding to agree to rent it; c. The rental rate was below market rate because the property was not in tip top shape; d. The landlord could have retained the house, that was his inheritance from his mother, and slowly address the structural and other remediation issues as he could afford to do so. Because he had allowed the tenants to rent the property, unaware of the significant structural issues the house had, he found himself having to find the money to demolish the house in a short time frame or face up to a $300,000.00 fine and/or prosecution. He struggled to find these funds, being a pensioner who lives off his government superannuation and having no other assets except his own home; e. The landlord has suffered, just as the tenants have suffered, because he tried out of the kindness of his heart to help the tenants out when they needed a home and could not find one. The fact the tenants have had such difficulty in finding a permanent home, before and after this tenancy, was what led them to try to force the landlord to bring the house up to all the legal requirements and to meet all his landlord obligations in a short timeframe and to refuse to have the tenancy ended.
I am in no doubt that both parties to this tenancy relationship have suffered, albeit in very different ways, and entering this tenancy has cost both parties dearly. I feel for both parties as they both found themselves in challenging situations neither foresaw at the time they agreed to sign the tenancy agreement.
I am satisfied the evidence proves that neither party is to blame in this unfortunate situation. The landlord made the decision to rent the tenants this home with the best of intentions. He had a repair and maintenance plan that he tried to carry out in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and even after he was informed of the significant structural issues, he tried to address as many of the tenants concerns as he could when they refused to consent to terminating the tenancy once they were informed the landlord could not afford to address the structural issues identified on 18 March 2025. Both parties have proven that they have suffered health issues as a result of this tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any 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. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord act to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

The tenants claim the landlord has breached his obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord sought to terminate the tenancy because the premise had been found to have significant structural issues on 18 March 2025 that he was informed by a professional builder would cost a minimum of $197,000.00 to remediate.
The landlord has proven he is a pensioner that lives off government superannuation and could not afford the remediation work.
Additionally, after the Auckland Council became aware of the structural and other issues with the premise, it issued a Restricted Entry Insanitary Building Notice (IBN) on 17 April 2025. The IBN was upgraded, meaning that no person was allowed to remain in the property unless undertaking inspection, repairs or demolition work. Hurricane fencing was to be erected by 28 April 2025.
The Auckland Council requirements was that the building work be carried out by 17 June 2025 or the building demolished. Failure to do one of these things was highly likely to result in a $300,000.00 fine and/or prosecution.
I find that the evidence proves the landlord had legal grounds to terminate the tenancy. The tenants’ have not disproven the evidence. The claim is dismissed. Was the premise an unlawful residential premise and should the tenant’s rent be reimbursed (s78A of the RTA)?
The tenants claim the premises were unlawful residential premises because of the IBN issued on 17 April 2025 that confirmed the house did not comply with
The landlord accepts that once AC issued the IBN this acted as notice of the premises being an unlawful residential premise as it did not comply with section 121 of the Building Act 2004 and the Building Code. The law
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA confirms 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.
Section 45(1A) of the RTA confirms that any breach of s45(1)(a) to (ca) of the RTA is declared to be an unlawful act.
Schedule 1A of the RTA confirms that the Tribunal may award exemplary damages for intentional breaches of s45(1)(a) to (ca) of up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
Section 78A(2) defines an unlawful residential premises as: “a residential premises that are used for occupation for a person as a place of residence but that cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes by that person (whether generally or whether for the particular residential purposes for which that person is granted occupation) and where the landlord’s failure to comply with the landlord’s obligations under section 36 or 45(1)(c), or section 66H(2)(c) or 66I(1)(c), as relevant, has caused the occupation by that person to be unlawful or has contributed to that unlawful occupation”.
Section 56A of the RTA confirms: (1)A tenant of premises that at the start of the tenancy were, and that remain, unlawful residential premises may terminate the tenancy by giving not less than 2 days’ notice to the landlord. (2)Without limiting subsection (1), a landlord or a tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating a tenancy on the ground that the premises are unlawful residential premises. (3)The Tribunal may make the order if section 78A applies and the Tribunal is satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
Where a premise is declared to be an unlawful premise, s78A(4)(a) of the RTA allows the Tribunal to require the landlord to repay to the tenant(s) of all or part of the rent the tenant(s) have paid for the duration of their tenancy.
Section 78A(3)(a) of the RTA confirms: Despite anything to the contrary elsewhere in the RTA, (a) unless the Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the special circumstances of the matter, including the nature of the premises, it would be unjust not to make the order, the Tribunal must not order the tenant to pay to the landlord— (i)any sum found to be owing by way of rent in arrear; or (ii)any other sum by way of damages or compensation: (b) if the landlord has applied for termination on the ground of rent in arrear, the Tribunal may, but is not required to, make the order terminating the tenancy.
Section 78A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) does not provide examples of what constitutes an unlawful dwelling. However, since these provisions became law as part the RTA 2019 Amendments, the Tribunal has found the following types of premises to be an unlawful residential premise under Section 78A of the RTA: a. A premises that has never had resource nor building consent; b. Minor dwelling that never had resource consent; c. Minor dwelling that is not consented for sleeping; d. Minor dwelling that does not have CCC or COA; e. A rental property that does not comply with the Building Act 2004; f. A premises that does not comply with the 1947 Housing Improvement Regulations; g. A premise that does not comply with the Building Code.
A landlord is obliged to take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes (section 36 RTA). Analysis and findings
The Building Code sets clear expectations of the standards buildings should meet. It covers: a. structural stability; b. fire safety; c. access; d. moisture control; e. durability; f. services and facilities; and g. energy efficiency.
The Building Code states how a building must perform in its intended use, rather than describing how the building must be designed and constructed.
The AC IBN makes it clear that the premise does not meet the Building Code or section 121 of the Building Act 2004. [name suppressed] affidavit confirms the reason for the IBN is that the weatherboard cladding system, that appeared sound from the outside, was compromised by dry rot and borer, including in the studs, bearers, joists and bottom plates. The chimney was also detaching from the wall fixing. These hidden defects in the structure of the house were also exacerbated by the discovery that the existing timber framing had pre-dated the use of treated timber that is standard in modern construction. These structural defects required major remediation to get the house back up to the required building standards.
I am satisfied that the premise was more likely than not an unlawful residential premise, based on the evidence provided to the Tribunal. The tenants have had the amenity of the tenancy since 9 January 2025 until they were forced to move out because of the upgraded IBN on 27 April 2025.
I find that the tenants could have applied to the Tribunal at any time during the tenancy to end the tenancy if they had been suffering any loss of amenity, stress or inconvenience from renting an unlawful residential premise and they did not. They also refused to end the tenancy earlier when they were approached by the landlord’s daughter on 28 February 2025 after the 14-day notice had been issued for repair and maintenance issues so numerous that 14 days was not sufficient time to address them all. Further, on 18 April 2025, the landlord’s lawyer issued the tenants with a notice terminating the tenancy and made a without prejudice offer to settle on 23 April 2025. The tenants consistently refused to end the tenancy and demanded the landlord remedy all the defects and pay for alternative accommodation for the family while this work was carried out.
As such, I consider that it would be inequitable to compensate the tenants for the full rent they paid to live in the premise for 15 weeks and 3 days when they had been given several opportunities to move out when they became concerned the premise was unlawful and when they were fully informed it was unlawful and the landlord had no fiscal means of remediating the significant structural issues that made the house extremely unsafe to enter, let alone live in.
I find that the parties agree the premise was an unlawful residential premise from the start of the tenancy. The numerous repair and maintenance issues raised by the tenant during the tenancy, and in his 14-day notice, altered the tenants from the beginning of the tenancy that the house required more work than what the parties had thought when they agreed to enter into the tenancy and by 18 March 2025, it was known to be an unlawful residential premise. The AC IBN then confirmed this.
The next question is what quantum of rent rebate should be awarded to the tenants?
The factors for consideration are: a. What benefit did the tenants gain from the tenancy? b. What loss of amenity might have been suffered? c. What was the condition of the interior? d. What was the impact on the use of other areas of the premises (ie the garage and carport)? e. Are there any special circumstances?
The tenants were happy to remain living in the premise and although they wanted numerous defects remedied, they were still able to live in the premise but did suffer considerable loss of amenity that they were paying to enjoy because of these numerous defects/repair and maintenance issues that were traversed during the hearing. Some such issues that affected the tenants amenity of the premise were: a. Lead based paint flakes and dust coming through the windows and louvres; b. Lead based paint on the inside of window frames and sills that were chipped and cracking; c. Rotten floorboards and joists; d. Windows screwed shut, limiting ventilation; e. Dampness, mould and water damage throughout the house from leaking roof and other structural issues; f. Gaps in windows which were rotting and full of borer; g. Broken glass in carport/laundry; h. Damaged mosquito net in the back door; i. Broken fireplace bricks, grate and loose mantel piece; j. Unstable chimney with gaps that let draughts in k. Electrical wiring issues; and l. Other more minor issues.
I note that some repair and maintenance issues raised by the tenants have not been proven on the balance of probabilities, but a number of these claims have been proven to that standard.
I find that the tenants should receive a rent rebate of eighty percent of the rent they paid, being $5,512.00 (80% of the $6,890.00 they paid for the 15 week and 3-day period from 9 January to 27 April 2025). I am satisfied that the tenants had 20% amenity of the premise because: a. They continued to use the garage to store some of their belongings, and the male tenant’s business equipment, from 27 April 2025 until they gave vacant possession to the landlord on 23 June 2025; and b. They lived in the house from 9 January to 27 April 2025, albeit with a number of repair and maintenance issues that tempered their enjoyment of the premise somewhat. Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(a), (b), (bb) and (c) obligations to the tenant?
The tenants claim the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45(1)(a), (b), (bb) and (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Section 45(1)(a) of the RTA requires the landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards by a specified compliance date that varies according to the date the tenancy commenced.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
Breaching any or all of these s45(1) obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00 for all substantiated s45(1) of the RTA breaches. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Did the landlord provide the premise to the tenants in a reasonable state of cleanliness?
The tenants say the landlord has failed to provide the rental premise in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Specifically, the tenants produced photographs that they say show the premise did not meet the required standard of cleanliness.
A landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 6 , even if the tenant has noticed the state of the premise when entering into the 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s45(1)(a). tenancy agreement 7 . However, a reasonable state of cleanliness does not mean spotless. 8
A tenant might be awarded compensation if premises are offered in a generally untidy condition but cannot immediately terminate the tenancy 9 . Unless the premise is uninhabitable, a landlord is entitled to reasonable time to remedy. 10
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 11 , not commercially clean 12 , spotless 13 or to a hotel or motel standard 14 . The better the premise and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected 15 .
The tenants claim: a. There was a rat infestation from the day the tenancy commenced. The tenants produced photographs of two dead rat carcasses they found when they went into the ceiling after the tenancy had commenced but did not produce any evidence that proves on the balance of probabilities that there was a current rat infestation on the day they took possession of the property; b. There were dirty and stained carpets throughout the house. The landlord proved the tenants hired a rug doctor prior to the tenancy commencing on 9 January 2025 and the landlord reimbursed them for this cost. There was evidence the carpets were worn but not dirty or stained; c. There was mould on the bathroom door, vanity, carpet in the second bedroom and on the curtains and in the toilet cistern. The landlord confirmed the premise was free from mould at the start of the tenancy and that these things developed during the tenancy due to the roofing and structural issues discovered well after the tenancy commenced. I find that the tenants have not proven this claim on the on the balance of probabilities; d. There was rubbish and inorganic waste around the property. The landlord proved this is a 36-acre property and that the area around the house was reasonably clean and tidy but not perfect. The types of items the tenants complained of did not cause them a loss of amenity and they were aware 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s45(3). 8 FTER Ltd v Knight [2015] NZTT Napier 1136 at [25]. 9 Re Grant NZTT North Shore TT112/87, 24 December 1987 at [10]-[11]. 10 FTER Ltd v Knight [2015] NZTT Napier 1136 at [26]. 11 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 12 Mills v kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 at [15]-[17]. 13 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]; Herbert v Garton [2013] NZTT Hastings 237 at [42]; Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [206] NZTT Auckland 3149 at [6]. 14 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 15 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. of these items when they viewed the property and accepted the tenancy knowing there were some old building materials, truck tires and an old tank around the property. I do not find that this is a breach of the landlord’s s45(1)(a) of the RTA obligations. These kinds of items are frequently found on large farming type properties of this size. Many of the building materials the landlord intended to use in the future; e. The gardens were overgrown. The landlord proved he tidied the gardens on 7 January 2025, before the tenancy formally commenced; f. There were dirty and mouldy draws . The tenants’ photographs labelled “early photos before and during move in” show the draws free from mould. The photographs of the mouldy draws in the bathroom were from during and not at the start of the tenancy; g. There were dirty marks on the wall. The tenants stated during the hearing they did not know what this claim related to and did not produce any evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities; h. There was insect excrement. The tenants stated during the hearing they did not know what this claim related to and did not produce any evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. They stated that when they had lifted the carpet during the tenancy they saw dead insects under the carpet and through the cracks in the floorboards; i. There was mould on the curtains. The female tenant stated there was a damp and mouldy smell in the curtains, so she washed them. There were no photographs provided to prove this claim and the landlord submitted there was no such mould on the curtains at the start of the tenancy. It is for the tenants to prove this claim, and they did not produce any evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities;
The tenants were unable to produce sufficient evidence to prove their s45(1)(a) of the RTA claims. Therefore, I dismiss the tenants claim for compensation and/or exemplary damages under this head of claim.

Did the landlord fail to repair and maintain the premise in a reasonable condition?

The tenants say the landlord has failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances.
The landlord accepted some of the tenants repair and maintenance claims, specifically those that related to the structural issues that were first discovered on 18 March 2025, the leaks, roof and guttering issues, the lead based paint that was peeling and flaking inside and outside of the house, the mould and dampness issues that developed, borer holes, gaps in windows, rotting floorboards and window frames/sills, fireplace, mantel piece and chimney issues, oven issues, electrical issues, and a number of more minor issues.
The landlord successfully disproved some claims such as, wasp nest, rat infestation, unreliable back door lock, insufficient access to the crawl space in the ceiling, loose toilet lid that kept loosening when it was tightened, shower head partially blocked, overgrown gardens and rubbish and inorganic junk around the property.
I am not going to traverse all of the repair and maintenance claims in detail as I am satisfied that the tenants have proven that there were a significant amount of these issues they raised during the tenancy, many in a 14-day notice dated 27 February 2025.
The landlord’s evidence has proven that he took steps to investigate and try to remediate, as fast as he could in all the circumstances, the numerous repair and maintenance issues raised by the tenants, even after he discovered that the premise required significant structural work he could not afford.
I find the tenants did suffer some loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience because of the numerous repair and maintenance issues the landlord could not address fully or at all during the short tenancy. However, I cannot award the tenants more of a rent rebate than 100% of the rent they paid for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience they suffered, and I recognise that the tenants still enjoyed some amenity while living in the house from 9 January 2025 to 27 April 2025 and storing some of their belongings in the house until 23 June 2025. Under the unlawful residential premise claim I have awarded the tenants 80% of the rent they paid for the 15 weeks and 3 days of their tenancy. This recognises the same loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience as exists under this head of claim. Therefore, I find that it would not be just to award any additional rent rebate under this head of claim.
I do not find that these breaches were intentional and as such decline to award any exemplary damages. Failure to meet buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premise
The tenants say the landlord failed to meet his obligations under s45(1)(c) of the RTA and the parties evidence proves the premise did not comply with s121 if the Building Act 2004, which defines the rental premise as a dangerous building that in the ordinary course of events is likely to cause injury or death to persons in it or to persons on other property or damage to other property.
Therefore, I am satisfied that the landlord was in breach of this obligation but do not consider it just to award the tenants any more than the 80% rent rebate they have already been awarded under the unlawful residential premise claim above.
I do not find that this breach was intentional and as such decline to award any exemplary damages. Failure to meet healthy homes standards
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 9 January 2025 (as per my Order dated 18 June 2025). Therefore, the landlord had 120 days from the commencement date to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards, being Friday, 9 May 2025.
In reality the tenancy ended on 27 April 2025, when the tenants moved out.
The 18 June 2025 termination date in the 18 June 2025 Order was necessary because the tenants had refused to allow the landlord to end the tenancy and had continued to hope that the landlord would have the structural work undertaken in the timeframe specified by the Council to allow the tenancy to continue.
With a commencement date of 9 January 2025, the premise had to be healthy homes compliant by 9 May 2026. The tenancy had ended by this date and the house was demolished prior to this date. This claim is dismissed for lack of evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Did the landlord’s fail to provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure, specifically the back door lock that was unreliable and the garage lock (refer s46(1) of the RTA)?
The tenants claim the tilt door did not have a lock and was not secure. The photographs of the garage door show it had a spring mechanism and the tenants say it could be pulled open from outside by pulling the bottom of the door.
The tenants say that is how they got into the garage, and they asked the landlord to fix it. The landlord did not address this issue promptly as it was a minor issue in comparison to all of the other issues raised in the 27 February 2925 14-day notice and the numerous issues that were raised before and after this notice.
The tenants’ photographs show a broken handle but does not show that there is a missing lock nor that the door plates on the side do not meet.
The landlord claims the door was secure and you would have to use force to open the tilt door from outside.
I find that the tenants have not produced sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. Therefore, the claim is dismissed. Did the landlord provide the statutorily required healthy homes, smoke alarm and insurance information in the tenancy agreement?
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 13A(1A), 13A(1CA) and 13A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1A) the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord that describes whether or not there is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, any insulation installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises and the details of the location, type, and condition of all insulation that is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises.
Under s13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the five healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions. These five standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping. This provision also requires the landlord to record how many smoke alarms are in the premise, when the smoke alarms were last tested and when they expire.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
If the landlord is unable to provide some or all the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 13A(2) states the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement the following information about insurance of the premises: (a)if the premises are not insured, a statement that they are not insured; and (b)if the premises are insured, a statement— (i)setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and (ii)informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request (except that the statement need not inform the tenant of this if the landlord has already provided to the tenant a copy of the policy in accordance with section 45(2B) or 66J(5)).
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) and/or 13A(2) of the RTA obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement produced in evidence proves, it did not contain a healthy homes compliance statement, any of any of the required healthy homes standards information or why such information could not be provided or any smoke alarm or insurance information. As such, the tenants had no idea when they took on the tenancy, whether the premises were fully healthy homes compliant, whether any exemptions apply to the premises, whether there were smoke alarm(s) that were compliant with statutory requirements and whether the landlord had insurance that limited the tenant’s liability for costs associated with any careless or deliberate damages to the premise.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, pursuant to section 13A(1F)(a) of the RTA, the Tribunal may award up to a maximum of $750.00 in exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied the landlord failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements and smoke alarm information prescribed by sections 13A(1A),13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, or the insurance information prescribed by s13A(2) of the RTA.
I find the landlord intentionally breached 13A(1CA) of the RTA and that, it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $375.00 exemplary damages (50% of the maximum penalty available) because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known that he is required by to provide the tenants with healthy homes, smoke alarm and insurance information with a written tenancy agreement b. The tenants are entitled to rely on their statutory right to receive information about: i. whether the premise was healthy homes compliant and if it wasn’t, was it exempt from these requirements; ii. whether the premise has compliant smoke alarms, where they are located, when they were last tested and when they expire; and iii. If the landlord has tenant insurance that covers tenant related damage to the premise, what the policy covers and the excess that applies. c. t is in the interests of the tenants to receive compensation for the landlords’ breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations ensure the tenants have healthy homes compliance information, smoke alarm information and insurance information given to them prior to the commencement of the tenancy so they can make an informed decision whether or not to rent a non-compliant premise. Did the landlord fail to provide the tenants with the heathy homes information they requested?
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached his obligation under section 45(1AC) of the RTA.
Under section 45(1AC), a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Tenants first 14-day notice was 27 February 2025.44 The period 21 days following this date is 20 March 2025. The Tenants specifically requested Tenancy Services Rental Agreement, including Healthy Homes, Insulation and Insurance Statements.
The Tenants second 14-day notice was 8 April 2025. The period 21 days following this date is 29 April 2025. The 18 June 2025 Order mistakenly states that 14-day Notices were issued on 2 January 2025 and 27 February 2025.
On 13 March 2025 Ngaire Dunn provided the tenants with: (a) Tenancy Agreement (again); (b) The Healthy Homes Insulation Statement; and (c) Insurance Statement
The landlord thought it had provided the information the tenants requested, and the tenants did not come back to her to clarify what, if any further information they were seeking. Had they done so, she states that she would have provided the tenants with the additional information they required. She simply thought she had provided what they asked for. Additionally, the landlord had until 9 May 2025 to ensure the home was fully healthy homes compliant and the tenancy ended before the compliance date. The parties knew the house was not fully complaint at the times the tenants made these information requests, and that the landlord was still getting contractors to investigate what areas the house was not complaint in and for a plan to address such areas. Once the 18 March 2025 information was given to the landlord and the tenants were notified on 21 March 2025, and the AC IBN notice was issued and upgraded, both parties knew the house was not going to be able to be made fully complaint by the compliance date.
I find that the landlord took reasonable steps in all the circumstances to provide the requested information he had in his control at the time of the requests and that the tenants have not provided sufficient evidence to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities. There is no evidence the landlord intentionally withheld the requested information from the tenants. Therefore, an award of exemplary damages would not be just in all the circumstances. This claim is therefore dismissed. Did the landlord fail to comply with all requirements in respect of contaminants imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138C(3)(c), specifically asbestos, oil, diesel and lead; and (refer to s45(1)(bd) and Schedule 1A of the RTA)?
Section 45(1)(bd) requires landlords to comply with all requirements in respect of contaminants imposed on the landlord by regulations made under s 138(3)(c) RTA.
There are no specific regulations in force under the RTA for asbestos, oil, diesel or lead paint or lead soil contamination. The Residential Tenancies (Contaminants) Regulations 2019 were never passed into law.
None of the above contaminants constitute ‘contaminants’ for the purposes of s 2 contaminant (b) RTA.
As a result, no award is possible under this cause of action and the tenants’ claims are dismissed. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenants have been substantially successful with their claims I
reimburse the filing fee. Name Suppression
The tenants and the landlord apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants and the landlord have been substantially successful in these proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants or the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5183378 — Exemplary damages

Tenancy Tribunal case 5183378 — Exemplary damages

Order

Reasons

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

EVIDENTIAL ISSUES

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord act to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Did the landlord fail to repair and maintain the premise in a reasonable condition?

Order

Reasons

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

EVIDENTIAL ISSUES

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord act to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Did the landlord fail to repair and maintain the premise in a reasonable condition?