What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5195091 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $7,300.00 (3846576-003) to [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5195091?

Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $8,100.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5195091?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Healthy homes, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5195091?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12876454-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5195091 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $7,300.00 (3846576-003) to [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5195091?

Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $8,100.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5195091?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Healthy homes, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5195091?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12876454-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16 Brightside Road, Auckland, Auckland 1060 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5195091 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5195091 — net $11,877.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
General damages	$8,100.00	General damages
Exemplary damages: Breach HHS	$3,000.00	Breach HHS
Exemplary damages: Smoke alarms	$750.00	Smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,877.00
Bond	$7,300.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$11,877.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5195091 — net $11,877.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
General damages	$8,100.00	General damages
Exemplary damages: Breach HHS	$3,000.00	Breach HHS
Exemplary damages: Smoke alarms	$750.00	Smoke alarms
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,877.00
Bond	$7,300.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$11,877.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $7,300.00 (3846576-003) to [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.
[The landlord/s], [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s], Lien-Chi must pay [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $11,877.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr. Hughes and Mr. Ashby attended on behalf of the tenants. Mr. Shih attended on behalf of the landlord.
This is a cross application.
The tenants filed an application for refund of their bond, compensation for breaches of Healthy Homes standards, (“HHS”) compensation for breaches of the landlord’s obligation to maintain the property, and compensation for a lack of smoke alarms during the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage, cleaning, missing light bulbs and missing smoke alarms.
Both parties are seeking reimbursement of the filing fee.
The parties signed a tenancy agreement for a fixed-term tenancy to begin on 15 February 2024 and end on 14 February 2025. By consent this tenancy was extended and ended on 28 February 2025.
Prior to this tenancy, Mr. Ashby had been part of previous tenancies at the same property. Mr. Ashby first moved into this property in February 2020 with at least five other people who were not part of this tenancy agreement. New tenancy agreements were organised periodically from 2020 until the above tenants signed this tenancy agreement in February 2024. Mr. Ashby estimates that another 10 to 15 people, as well as the 10 people from the first and last tenancy agreements, lived in this property over this time.
Today both parties agreed that this cross application applies only to the tenancy that began on 15 February 2024 and ended on 28 February 2025.
The landlord did not conduct a start of tenancy inspection or take any photographs regarding the condition of the property for this tenancy.
As part of their evidence today, the landlord provided a Healthy Homes Certificate of Compliance dated 10 February 2021 from a company called Oncore, and a “Rental Certificate of Compliance” certificate and report on the condition of the property from a company called Icompli, also dated 10 February 2021. The Icompli report is not a HHS report; it covers the general condition of the property. The Oncore certificate says the premises is fully compliant with HHS except for insulation, which the landlord subsequently remedied. A HHS report from Oncore is not provided.
The tenants provided a HHS report by Healthy Homes Inspection NZ Limited, dated 09 January 2025. Tenants’ claims
[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claim 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 HHS. [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating, ventilation, draught stopping and moisture ingress and drainage standards.
Breaching the HHS is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. Breach of Healthy Homes heating standard
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The parties agree the main living area in this house is very large. The tenants’ HHS report describes it as 88 square metres. The landlord does not dispute this. The main living area has the television, couches and other furniture in it.
There is also a secondary living area which is comprised of the kitchen and informal dining room. This has only a kitchen table and chairs in it.
The tenants say the kitchen and informal dining room were adequately heated, but the main living area was not adequately heated. The tenants say the living area was always very cold and as a result it was prone to mould. There was one, small gas heater built into a wall in the lounge.
The landlord’s Oncore certificate, records the heating standard as a ”pass”. This report says a 9.5 kilowatt heater is required for the main living area, and a 17 kilowatt heater is available.
The tenants HHS report says that the heater provided is of unknown wattage. It says a 12.5 kilowatt heater is required.
There is disagreement between the two reports and I expect this is the result of the fact that the premises are served by a ducted gas heating system. It is possible that the total output of this ducted heating system for the whole premises is 17 kilowatts, which is a huge heating unit. The heating unit in the main living area clearly is not 17 kilowatts.
The landlord today said that as far as they were concerned the property had passed a HHS assessment and there was nothing more they needed to, or could do.
I do not agree with this. It is not sufficient for a landlord to rely on an assessment which is incorrect and expect to be exonerated by it when the reality of the situation clearly paints a different picture.
The reality of the situation in this case is that the living area is huge and the installed heating unit does not approach the requirement, be that 9.5 kilowatts or 12.5 kilowatts, to heat it.
This claim is proved.
I determined that the landlord has committed an unlawful act with regard to the HHS heating standard. Breach of Healthy Homes ventilation standard
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The tenants HHS report says the one downstairs bathroom does not have ducted ventilation that is compliant with the HHS. It says there is an extraction fan but it is only ducted into the ceiling, and it does not work.
The tenants say the extraction fan and this bathroom has never worked.
The landlord says he is not aware of whether the fan works or not.
This claim is proved. I determine the landlord has committed an unlawful act with regard to the HHS ventilation standard. Breach of Healthy Homes draught stopping standard
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The tenants HHS report says the premises are not compliant with HHS draught stopping standard in that there are gaps around windows and doors. The report says that several window latches are missing, and it shows photographs of the windows. The windows are older style aluminium windows and I can see no visible gaps are visible from the photographs provided.
The landlord disagrees that there are gaps around the windows, and he points to his 2021 Oncore certificate which says the premises passes the healthy homes draught stopping standard.
Based on the information before me today I am not persuaded the premises is not compliant with the healthy home standards draught stopping standard.
The tenants’ information regarding the gaps is vague, and is not consistent with what I can see in the photographs, which is no visible gaps. It is not clear what the tenants’ HHS report is referring to.
This claim is not proved. Breach of Healthy Homes moisture ingress and drainage standard
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains.
The tenants HHS report says the premises are not compliant with HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard but doesn't provide any details as to why not.
The tenants said prior to this tenancy beginning the ceiling in the main living room had leaked whenever it rained hard, and the landlord had been notified of this. This continued for the duration of this tenancy, in particular on approximately five separate occasions when a quarter of a bucket of water was collected from the main leak which came from a hole in the ceiling approximately 2 centimetres in diameter, where the gib-board had crumbled away. The tenant said they believed the water was coming from the deck which was above the main living area.
The tenants said they spoke to the landlord several times about the leak but nothing was ever done.
The landlord said he wasn't aware of the leaks.
I find this claim proved.
The tenants said that for the duration of this tenancy, the kitchen sink leaked into the cabinetry below every time they used it. The tenants provided photographs which showed the sink area in the kitchen to be in very poor condition. The kitchen bench has a join just in front of the sink and this has failed. The bench has then fallen away from the sink allowing water to pass between the sink and the bench. The tenants said there was also a leak from the pipes under the sink but they weren't sure exactly which one. The photographs show the cabinet door below the sink and the cabinet shelves to be in very poor condition with the melamine surfaces lifting off.
The landlord said they had tried to address the problem but the results had not been that great.
I find this claim proved.
The tenants said that showers in two of the ensuite bathrooms leaked into the garage below every time the shower was used. This was the case for the duration of this tenancy.
The parties agreed that this had been an ongoing problem during one of the earlier tenancies. The landlord said the bathrooms had more or less been completely rebuilt in 2023 in an effort to remedy the leaks. This had been successful for a period of time before the showers started leaking again.
The tenants suggested the contractors that the landlord had employed had not been qualified tradespeople but had been handymen.
The landlord said the contractors were always competent and he didn't know exactly what their qualifications were.
I find this claim proved.
The tenants say that on 27 December 2024 the toilet in one of the ensuite bathrooms began to leak and water crossed the bathroom floor and made the carpet in the adjoining bedroom wet. The tenant contacted the landlord, and a person visited on that day or the day after.
The landlord said that it was difficult to find tradespeople available to work at this time of year but he did his best. A person was sent out almost immediately. The problem was caused by a failure of one of the parts in the toilet. Stopgap measures were made until replacement parts went able to be sourced.
From the information available to me today, I consider the landlord did everything he could given the scope of the problem and the Christmas period when many shops were closed and tradespeople unavailable.
I do not consider this a breach of the HHS or the landlord’s requirement to maintain the premises under section 45 of the RTA.
I have found the tenants’ claims for HHS breaches of the heating standard, ventilation standard, and moisture ingress and drainage standard proved. These breaches amount to an unlawful act on behalf of the landlord.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord’s intent in not fulfilling his obligations under the RTA are not clear. The photographs provided by the tenants and the information given by the tenants paint a picture of the property being neglected. I believe the landlord has focussed more on economic considerations than on maintaining the property as an executive-style premises which is what it was when the first tenancy began in 2020. The photographs show the premises to be well appointed and the landlord himself said the current market value of the property is probably in the $6 million mark. The landlord’s conduct means the premises have been deteriorating in condition over several years and the pay-off has probably resulted in financial savings, and savings of time and effort for the landlord.
I determine exemplary damages are warranted in this case. Three different HHS are breached. In the case of the moisture ingress standard there are three separate breaches. The breaches are not unsubstantial, and they have endured for the entire tenancy.
The landlord has failed to record the condition of the property at the beginning of the tenancy and has failed to conduct regular inspections of the premises during the tenancy. The landlord made several remarks about relying on the tenants to advise them of problems, but this is not adequate. A landlord must be proactive in managing a tenancy, after all it is they that are liable for breaches of the RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that a sum of $3,000.00 in exemplary damages is warranted for these breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards.
The tenants said they are also seeking a rent reduction for the duration of the tenancy for these breaches of the HHS, and I believe this is warranted.
The house commands a significant rent of $1,825.00 per week. This reflects the location in a sought after suburb, and the size and style of the house.
However, the premises have had ongoing leaks in the garage from two showers, in the kitchen from the sink, and in the lounge ceiling from a leaky deck. The heating is insufficient to comply with HHS resulting in the main living area being cold during winter, and there is a non-working extractor fan in one of the six bathrooms. These breaches would have affected some of the tenants more than others, but some of the breaches would have affected all of the tenants considerably. I consider a rent discount of $150.00 per week, or $8,100.0 for the duration of the 54-week tenancy is reasonable to reflect the reduction in amenity from the standard required by law. This is approximately
5% of the total rent paid.
This amount is proved. Failure to maintain
[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claim the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016
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 tenants claim the landlord has breached their obligations under this requirement by not installing smoke alarms during this tenancy.
The landlord says that smoke alarms had been present during some of the earlier tenancies but because no inspections have been undertaken for some time, the landlord cannot say when the premises last complied with this regulation. The tenants accept there were smoke alarms at one point, but say they don't know when the smoke alarms went missing.
The tenants’ healthy homes report states that 5 smoke alarms are needed for this property.
This is another circumstance where the landlord would have been well served by conducting a start of tenancy inspection for this tendency. It is a landlord responsibility to provide compliant premises and the landlord may not rely on any obligation of the tenant to point out the property’s failings.
This claim is proved.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Smoke alarms are critical safety feature required in all residential tenancies. Tenants and the public have an expectation that they will be provided. In the circumstances I consider exemplary damages of $750.00 are warranted. Failure to lodge bond
[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
Following the establishment of the earlier tenancies, a bond of $7000.00 was paid to the Bond Centre. There is no dispute between the parties as to this having been paid. At a later date top up amount of $300.00 was made to the landlord in consideration of an increase in rent. The landlord is unsure whether this was forwarded to the Bond Centre.
During the hearing I called the Bond Centre to find out how much bond had been deposited. Unfortunately I was on hold for thirty minutes and the Bond Centre did not answer the call. I have since tried on two more occasions to contact the Bond Centre and have sat on hold for similar amounts of time.
There was nothing to stop the tenant from calling the Bond Centre prior to the hearing to ascertain this information. In the absence of this information I do not find the claim proved.
If the Bond Centre is only holding $7,000.00 bond for this tenancy, the landlord is to repay the extra $300.00 themselves. Landlord’s claims

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord is claiming $233.38 to replace missing and broken light bulbs.
The tenants dispute this claim. They point out that the landlords’ invoice is dated 1 August 2025, when the tenancy ended on 28 February 2025, some five months earlier.
In response the landlord said that an assessment was done in April by one of the new tenants, two months after the tenancy ended.
The tenants also said that at the end of the tendency they ensured that all the light bulbs were working. They said they had had ongoing problems with the ageing “drivers” for the down lights which meant that the bulbs blew regularly. The tenants also said that new tenants took over and carried on living in the premises the very day they moved out.
I note again that no start of tenancy inspection was undertaken and there is no record of which light bulbs were or were not working, or were even present.
There was no assessment by the landlord at the conclusion of the tenancy and it is possible if not likely that more lightbulbs failed between this tenancy ending and the new tenants assessing the premises two months later.
I consider the landlord’s hearsay evidence that a tenant assessed the lightbulbs in April to largely unreliable.
In these circumstances I cannot find the landlord’s claim for light bulbs proved.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the property?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord is claiming $2,472.50 for repairs to the premises including holes in walls, repairs to doors and repairs to window latches.
Because there was no start of tenancy inspection it is not possible to determine which holes in the walls were made during this tenancy and which were made during an earlier tenancy, or when the window latches broke.
By the time this tenancy ended the premises had been occupied continuously for five years, by a total up to 25 or even 30 people, and the damage could have been caused at any time by any of these people.
It the responsibility of a landlord or a property manager to keep abreast of the condition of their property so as to ensure their claims can be accurately directed.
This claim is not proved.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims that the tenants left belongings and rubbish behind at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is claiming $400.00 for cleaning.
The landlord said that no cleaning costs or disposal costs have been incurred.
The premises was inherited as is, by the one remaining tenant and the new tenants that joined him.
The tenants point out the one remaining tenant signed a new tenancy starting the day after their tenancy ended. There was continuity of occupancy and living conditions from one tenancy to the next and the new tenant inherited all belongings left behind and took over tenant responsibilities under section 40 of the RTA.
Because the landlord has not incurred any loss I do not find this claim proved.
Because [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5195091 — Property damage at 16 Brightside Road, Auckland, Auckland 1060

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5195091 — Property damage at 16 Brightside Road, Auckland, Auckland 1060

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the property?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the property?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions