What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5185493 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 5185493?

Compensation: Unlawful residential p…: $8,648.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $6,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5185493?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5185493?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12898910-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5185493 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 5185493?

Compensation: Unlawful residential p…: $8,648.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $6,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5185493?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5185493?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12898910-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

624A Dairy Flat Highway, Dairy Flat, RD 2, Dairy Flat 0792 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5185493 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5185493 — net $15,925.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 45(1A	$6,500.00	Section 45(1A
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$750.00	Unlawful entry
Compensation: Unlawful residential premises	$8,648.57	Unlawful residential premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$15,925.57
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$15,925.57

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5185493 — net $15,925.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 45(1A	$6,500.00	Section 45(1A
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry	$750.00	Unlawful entry
Compensation: Unlawful residential premises	$8,648.57	Unlawful residential premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$15,925.57
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$15,925.57

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Idea Home Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $15,925.57 immediately.

It is declared that the premises are unlawful residential premises. Section 78A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, a claim relating to the Healthy Homes standards, compensation and exemplary damages.
The Tribunal made an order on 13 December 2024. The order terminated the tenancy on 10 January 2025 and awarded rent arrears to the landlord. The Tribunal assessed the market rent for the premises at $500.00 per week to apply from 3 December 2024. As part of that order the bond was released to the landlord.
As the Tribunal has released the bond the tenant’s claim for refund of the bond cannot be considered. That part of her claim is dismissed. Section 45
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety and provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, failed to comply with the Healthy Homes standards and failed to provide an adequate means for storage of water. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Provide in reasonable state of cleanliness
The tenancy commenced on 19 August 2023. An ingoing inspection report dated 18 August 2023 was produced. That report has comments about the condition of the premises and photographs.
At the hearing the tenant referred to specific photographs to submit that the premises were not provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the commencement of the premises.
I have considered this evidence, and I accept that further cleaning was required for the premises to be in a reasonable state of cleanliness. Provide and maintain premises
The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to maintain in respect of many areas at the premises including the deck; which the tenant ended up water blasting and replacing some of the boards, the stairs; which were only repaired when a compliance worker fell through them, the fence; which had fallen over at the rear of the section, dead trees; which had fallen on powerlines, the toilet leak, and the downpipes.
The tenant states that she raised issues and constantly contacted the landlord to monitor whether there was any progress. Healthy Homes standards
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard, ventilation standard, draught stopping standard and moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For tenancies started or renewed between 28 August 2022 and 2 March 2025 they must comply with the healthy homes standards within 120 days.
For this tenancy the healthy homes compliance date is 18 December 2023.
Due to concerns that the tenant had in relation to compliance with the Healthy Homes standards, the tenant contacted the Tenancy Compliance and Investigations team at the Ministry of business, Innovation and Employment (“MBIE”).
The tenant produced an email from MBIE dated 4 September 2024. The email referred to possible breaches of the Healthy Homes standards and in particular the extractor fans (may need to ensure kitchen fan is correctly installed and bathroom fan is the correct capacity), underfloor insulation (visibly seen on the ground and falling down), unreasonable gaps and holes (multiple gaps around the property), drainage (no downpipes in about 3 areas and gutters not well maintained) and heating standard (heater may not be large enough to heat the living area).
The investigation team from MBIE sent a letter to the landlord dated 30 October 2024 titled “Notice to produce specified documents” which sought information to show that the landlord was meeting the obligations of a landlord in relation to specific concerns.
A later email to the tenant dated 14 February 2025 advised the tenant that a warning letter had been sent to the property manager advising of non- compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act as follows: •HHS r27 (Drainage) – a site visit on 2/9/24 found there was no downpipes in places. •HHS r26 (Unreasonable gaps and holes) - a site visit on 2/9/24 found unreasonable gaps in the kitchen and bedroom. •HHS r8 (Heating standard) - a site visit on 2/9/24 found since there was no hallway door, the heating capacity of the heat pump was insufficient. •HHS (Extractor fans) - a site visit on 2/9/24 found the bathroom extractor wasn’t working properly, and the kitchen extractor likely didn’t extract to the outside. •45(1)(b) (Landlord’s failure to meet obligations providing and maintaining the premises in a reasonable state of repair) - a site visit on 2/9/24 found multiple maintenance issued that required remedy, including but not limited to: o Gutters not maintained o Decks slippery and in need of repair in placed o Holes in exterior weather boards o Light switch in the hallway faulty, and other bulbs not working. o Toilet may be leaking. o Weathertightness of sunroom in question. o Sewage issues advised. •45(1)(c) Landlord’s failure to comply with requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety) - a site visit on 2/9/24 found there may be a rodent / rat issue. Also, the building was only permitted to be used as a single residential dwelling from council records, and not split into two separate rental properties as it was. A referral to Auckland Council was made. •13A(1CA)-CB) (Non-compliance with Healthy Homes statement requirements) – the healthy homes statement was non-compliant as it did not contain all the required information.
Two Healthy Homes report were produced for the hearing. The first report dated 26 July 2022 was prepared by Top Heat Pump. According to that report the premises complied with the Healthy Homes standards. The second report dated 5 December 2022 was prepared by Trust Property Services and that report also records compliance.
The difficulty I have with this evidence is that these reports are contradicted by the MBIE correspondence. In addition, there appear to be inaccuracies in the reports as photographs show doors between the lounge and sunroom that were not present during the tenancy and therefore affected the calculation for heating required. The landlord acknowledged that these doors were put in after the tenancy ended. One report shows photographs of a ground moisture barrier, whereas in the other report the page is blank where the photographs should be. The tenant’s evidence is that there was no ground moisture barrier during the tenancy. Both reports confirm that the property is compliant in relation to draught stopping but the photographs produced by the tenant show clear gaps under external doors.
While two Healthy Homes reports state the property is compliant, I have reached the conclusion that these reports cannot be relied upon and instead I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, based on the evidence produced, that the property does not comply with the Healthy Homes standards.
At the hearing the landlord mistakenly stated that the compliance for Healthy Homes was 1 July 2025. That date was the last date for all residential tenancies to comply where they did not need to comply earlier. As stated above the compliance date for this tenancy was 18 December 2023.
I also note that the tenant had requested information from the landlord in relation to the Healthy Homes standards, but the landlord did not provide the information sought within 21 days of the request which is required by the Act 1 . Collection and storage of water
Section 45(1)(ca) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that “the landlord shall – ‘if the premises do not have a reticulated water supply, provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water”.
The tenant said that they were not advised that water tanks were shared with the other tenancy. The water pump was located on the property for the other tenancy. The occupants of the other tenancy advised the tenants that they did not drink the water and instead purchased drinking water. When the tenants viewed the water tanks in January 2024 the water appeared discoloured, and the tanks were in disrepair with broken lids and leaks. The tenant said the tanks were filled with sludge and debris.
While the property manager arranged for the tanks to be cleaned the tenant said that the filter alarm was not serviced, and the broken lid and leaks were not addressed. The landlord provided some water when the tank was cleaned but that only lasted 3 weeks because of the leaks. The tenant and the neighbouring tenants jointly purchased water on three occasions. 1 Section 45(1AC) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The tenant purchased drinking water and when her adult son drank a glass of tap water because he did not know that the tap water should not be drunk, the tenant said that he got violently ill.
The tenant said that the pump often stopped and had to be reset by the neighbours if they were available which she said occurred frequently.
The landlord said that issues related to the water was reported to the owner and at the hearing was unable to provide any evidence of maintenance of the tanks. The landlord arranged for the water to be tested because of the December 2024 request from MBIE.
I am satisfied that the landlord failed in the responsibility to provide adequate means for collection and storage of water.
Having found that the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to comply with section 45 of the RTA, I must consider whether exemplary damages should be awarded under section 109.
I am satisfied that the landlord acted intentionally, as they were aware of their obligations and chose not to comply. The effect of the unlawful act is significant, as it impacted the tenant’s health and comfort. The interests of the tenant, as the party affected, are substantial, and there is a strong public interest in ensuring landlords comply with their legal obligations. I consider it just to make an award in this case.
Only one award of exemplary damages can be made for all breaches of section 45, even if there are multiple breaches or multiple subsections involved 2 .
The maximum exemplary damages for this breach is $7,200.00 Taking into account that the extent of the breach, I award exemplary damages of $6,500.00. Landlord entry
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 2 MBIE v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583
The landlord’s agent (contractors) attended at the premises on several occasions without notice and outside the time stipulated in the Act 3 . I find they have committed an unlawful act.
The tenant said that she raised the issue of contractors attending without notice and before 8am in the morning with the property manager but it continued. On one occasion in November 2024 a contractor had entered the premises while the tenant was not home to plug in power tools.
On another occasion one of the contractors had used the tenant’s timber to construct stairs up to the deck outside the kitchen. There was a further occasion where a contractor attempted to get a ladder from the vehicle belonging to the tenant’s partner.
Section 48 provides that the landlord, or any person acting on their behalf (contractors), may not enter the premises except with the tenant’s consent or in accordance with the notice requirements set out in the Act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant has raised the issue, and the conduct has continued. I therefore consider that the landlord acted intentionally. The conduct has had an impact on the tenant’s right to privacy and quiet enjoyment of the premises. Such conduct undermines the trust essential to the landlord-tenant relationship and can cause the tenant to feel unsafe in their own home. The impact is relevant to the assessment of exemplary damages, and I award $750.00. Unlawful residential tenancy
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant also sought an order for name suppression and is entitled to an order as the successful party 4 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5185493 — Exemplary damages at 624A Dairy Flat Highway, Dairy Flat, RD 2, Dairy Flat 0792

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5185493 — Exemplary damages at 624A Dairy Flat Highway, Dairy Flat, RD 2, Dairy Flat 0792

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions