What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5228911 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 5228911?

Compensation: Failure to maintain an…: $3,900.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5228911?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5228911?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12509823-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5228911 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 5228911?

Compensation: Failure to maintain an…: $3,900.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5228911?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5228911?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12509823-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5228911 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5228911 — net $7,427.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain and Failure to comply with HHS	$3,900.00	Failure to maintain and Failure to comply with HHS
Exemplary damages: s45(1A) RTA	$3,500.00	s45(1A) RTA
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,427.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,427.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5228911 — net $7,427.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain and Failure to comply with HHS	$3,900.00	Failure to maintain and Failure to comply with HHS
Exemplary damages: s45(1A) RTA	$3,500.00	s45(1A) RTA
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,427.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,427.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and the name of [the third property manager] and identifying details.
Oaks Property Management Limited As Agent For Saha Family Trust Acc Ellie Tounge must pay [The tenant/s] $7,427.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

From the moment the tenant picked up the key from under the mat and opened the door to the premises in August 2024, the tenant has been disappointed about the condition of the property. He says that the property was not clean and in good repair. He says that when items break at the property the landlord takes too long to get them repaired. He also says that the home is not compliant with healthy homes standards.
The landlord says that the tenant is being picky and unreasonable, that he has fixed items without first notifying the landlord, and is impatient when waiting for work to be completed. The landlord says that they believed the house was compliant with healthy homes standards at the beginning of the tenancy, and they have a report which confirms this.
The landlord also says that the tenant has not paid rent on time, and they are seeking termination of the tenancy.
The questions that the Tribunal has to answer are: a. Was the property rented out to the tenant in a reasonably clean and tidy condition? b. Was the property provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair? c. Is the home healthy homes compliant? d. If the landlord has breached the RTA, what compensation or exemplary damages should be awarded? e. Should the tenancy be terminated for rent arrears? Was the property rented out to the tenant in a reasonably clean and tidy condition?
The tenant provided the Tribunal with text messages between the tenant and his property manager and photographs that showed the condition of the property when he moved in.
The landlord did not conduct any inspections between the previous tenants leaving and this tenancy. The previous tenants moved out the night before this tenant moved in.
I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the property was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, some cleaning had been done, but the general condition of the property was below a reasonable standard. In making that comment I make no determination if the previous tenants met their obligations. I understand that they were told that work was going to occur at the premises, and this may be why the property was left in the condition that it was.
The landlord paid for cleaning to be done at the property and gave the tenant one week’s rent as compensation for this breach. I consider that the landlord has therefore compensated the tenant for the breach and give no further award of compensation.

Was the property provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair?

Landlords have an obligation to provide and maintain a property in a reasonable condition taking into account the age and character of a home 1 . A landlord does not have to foresee latent defects, or those that would be unobservable to the reasonable person. A landlord does not have to replace an item that is old but still functional.
A reasonable condition is not pristine. When considering what is reasonable the tribunal will take into account the age of the home, the rent paid and the functionality of the item.
The tenant had not seen the inside of the house before taking the tenancy. The tenant was shown photographs of the inside of the house by the agent. The main reason that the tenant wanted the house is that he was leasing the paddocks and stables from the previous tenants, and to live in the house on the land where he worked meant that he would be able to have 24/7 access to the animals and the land without commuting.
The tenant pays rent of $1350.00 per week for the whole property, this includes the house and curtilage, stables and the paddocks. Before the tenant rented the house, he paid $350 per week for the stables and the paddocks. Therefore, the value of the rent for the house is approximately $1000.00 per week. That is a rather high level of rent for houses in the area, and therefore a tenant paying that amount would expect a higher standard of amenity.
The tenant noted all the problems with the property in text messages with the agent. In a text message to the property manager on the 1 September only five days after the tenancy had begun, he said: 1 Section 45 (1)(b) RTA. On the 15 September the tenant and the landlord had the following text message conversation.
On the 21 September the tenant told the landlord of a leak in a wardrobe and told him that the roof may need to be assessed.
On the 15 September, it appears that the thermostat in the hot water cylinder failed.
In addition to the above claims there was also an issue with the oven not working and the gas pigtail being broken.
Since the tenant filed his claim the landlord and the tenant have resolved the tenants claims in respect of the driveway and pest control (undertaken at the property not the resultant damage) at the property.
The tenant provided photographs showing the condition of the property at the beginning of tenancy and text correspondence and emails with the landlord about many of these items.
The landlord did not conduct an inspection of the properties between the two tenancies. Therefore, I have no evidence from the landlord showing me what it says that the condition of the property was at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord has provided me with in inspection report of the property from December 2024 and that has been helpful in assessing the condition of the property at that time. The landlord also accepts that some of the work may have been needed but not to the extent that the tenant expected.
The landlord also complained that the tenant was refusing to allow the landlord’s tradespeople access to the house, the second property manager issued a 14 day breach notice to the tenant in November 2024 for this. This was despite there being no evidence that the tenant was preventing access to tradespeople in November. There is no evidence that the landlord gave proper notice of any repair at this time and the tenant failed to let tradespeople in. There were times when a tradesperson called the tenant, but because he did not recognise the numbers, he did not take the calls. I remind the landlord that it is their responsibility to organise a repair, not the tenants. Tenants should be given written notice that a tradesperson is coming, when and what their details are. Tenants are not required to be at home during the repair. If the landlord does not have a set of master keys to allow access then they should make arrangements with the tenants. This requires some give and take on behalf of both parties, each should be reasonable. The tenant was not acting unreasonably here, he did not know who was calling him, he was in the middle of his busy season for work and was often out of the country.
Having considered all of the evidence especially the photographs and messages between the tenant and the property manager and I am satisfied that the landlord failed to either provide or maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair at the beginning of the tenancy and that the failure to maintain some items has continued throughout the tenancy.
In respect to particular items, I say: a. The gravel driveway needed work – I accept that the landlord has compensated the tenant for this, and this is not in dispute. However, I note that there was large puddle at the front door, that would have made moving into the property extremely difficult. It also meant that anyone coming to the property would have had to walk through the puddle. b. That the ceiling in the garage needed to be gibbed. I do not consider that for the price that the tenant was paying in rent that the tenant would expect unlined walls or ceiling in the garage. c. The state of the deck. The photographs in the [Home Inspector 1] Healthy Homes report show a deck that is rotten and worn in places. The report writer says that the deck is saggy in places and questions the integrity of the deck. There are nails protruding. The stairs in particular are well below a reasonable standard. However, I note in the December 2024 inspection photographs that the tenant was using the deck. d. The oven did not work from the beginning of the tenancy to November when a new oven was installed. e. The gas pigtail was broken and not fixed until the 8 November 2024. f. The clothesline broke and needed to replaced. This was completed in March 2025. g. There were two holes in the property, one in the laundry and the kitchen. These were repaired in August 2025. h. The hedges were unkempt and needed to be trimmed. The property has mature gardens, which would need to maintain at least once a year. I accept that the tenant moved in at the end of winter, when it can be difficult to cut hedges and trim trees, however this issue went on for some time with the tenant having to raise in a lot of communication with the landlord. I also note that the tenant expected the property to present in a way that was more than a reasonable condition. He referred to bringing clients onto a property that reflected the nature and value of his clientele. That is not the landlord’s obligation. i. The ceiling fan was hitting the shower glass causing the glass damage and chipping. j. The heatpump did not work and was repaired. k. Blinds were installed into the bedrooms in or about November 2024.
I record that I do not consider that the landlord failed to maintain the bathroom vanity. This was in a reasonable condition and the landlord did not need to improve the condition of the property. I also note that the hot water cylinder repair was as a result of a thermostat failure. This was a latent defect. The hot water cylinder was repaired.

Is the home healthy homes compliant?

This home was required to be healthy homes compliant 120 days after the tenancy began. The tenancy premises was required to be compliant by the 25 December 2024.
The first property manager signed a declaration in the tenancy agreement confirming that the house would comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.
The requirement to meet the Healthy Homes Standards is a statutory one. What that means is that it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that the home is compliant. Tenants can expect the property to be compliant within the required timeframes without them raising issues.
The tenant says that the house was not compliant with the Healthy Homes standards right from the beginning of the tenancy, and that the information in the tenancy agreement was incorrect.
The landlord says that the house was healthy homes compliant, but notes that there was no extractor fan in the upstairs bathroom but that was installed in December.
The tenant obtained a Healthy Homes Report from [Home Inspector 1] on the 5 August 2025. That report is comprehensive and concludes that the property does not meet the 4 out 5 of the standards. The summary of the report is below: 30.
The landlord says in its submissions in respect of the Healthy Homes Standards: a. That the landlord has undertaken repairs or remedial work for compliance when needed, and that any delay to repairs is often because of the tenant not allowing access or not putting the dogs inside. b. A Healthy Homes Report dated 24 January 2022 confirmed that the Property was compliant with the applicable standards at that time. Additionally, in accordance with the recommendation in the Tribunal Order dated 31 July 2025, the Landlord commissioned a further Healthy Homes Report dated 8 August 2025. This report confirms that the Property is compliant with all Healthy Homes Standards except a top up of insulation required. Specifically, it passes the draught standard (with no holes present in the Property) and the ventilation standard, confirming the presence of an extractor fan outlet in the kitchen (also confirmed in the Healthy Homes Report dated 24 January 2022), as well as extractor fans in each bathroom. Noting that the extractor fan in the master bathroom was installed on 5 December 2024, after the Tenant permitted access for the contractor.
I have thoroughly reviewed all the Healthy Homes Report and I consider that the tenant’s [Home Inspector 1] report to be the most comprehensive. I consider that the findings in that report are more reliable than the reports by [Home Inspector 2]. I say this for the following reasons: •In the [Home Inspector 2] report of January 2022, it notes that there is an extractor fan in the kitchen (when there was not) it notes that it is there and “its in working order and ducted to the outside.” It also notes “the kitchen exhaust is built in and not visible.” The reference to “its in working order” implies to the reader that the report writer has turned it on and checked that it is working. However, as there was no mechanical ventilation then the report writer could not have checked it was working, because it did not exist., there was no basis to state that it was in working order. •The [Home Inspector 2] report in January 2022 did not pick up that there was no extractor fan in the upstairs bathroom. •The report clearly shows leaf matter in the photographs of the gutters but does not recommend gutter cleaning and passes the drainage standard. •The report only photographs one of the ceiling hatches, and does not appear to have looked into the ceiling of the bedroom by the garage where there was no insulation. •The report dated 8 August 2025 was completed the day after the landlord’s builder had gone to the property to remedy issues such as holes in the laundry. •The report dated 8 August 2025 now seeks an exemption for the mechanical ventilation in the kitchen but does not address why it would be reasonably impracticable to install mechanical ventilation when it is clear from the outlet in the scotia that at some point there was a rangehood or mechanical ventilation in the property.
I am satisfied that the landlord breached s45(1)(bb) RTA by failing to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards in the following ways: a. The gutters were not cleared at the beginning of the tenancy and were not cleared until April 2025. There is mesh over the top of the gutters, which provides some protection from leaf fall. There are a large number of mature trees in the property which means considerable leaf fall. I would expect that the landlord would have a regular regime to clean the gutters. I note that even though the gutters were cleaned in April 2025 by the time that the [Home Inspector 1] report was completed on the 5 August 2025 the gutters had leaf build up again. I also note that the [Home Inspector 1] report shows areas where the mesh is broken, and leaves can I get into the guttering. There are also plants growing over and in the gutters. b. The draught standards- I am satisfied that there were missing window latches and in particular that the window latch in the same bedroom which did not have insulation was missing. c. There was no insulation in one area of the house- back bedroom and hallway. I note that the landlord has since the hearing installed insulation in this area. d. That there was no mechanical ventilation in the kitchen. The tenant and the Tribunal were told on numerous occasions that the was mechanical ventilation in the kitchen, and that the tenant was not using the ventilation. This was plainly wrong as the landlord’s healthy homes report from August 2025, notes that the tenant’s position that there was no mechanical ventilation in the property was correct. I do not consider that a landlord can tell a tenant that there is mechanical ventilation in the property and that the property meets the standard for almost a year and then only when confronted with a Tribunal hearing change their position that the kitchen should be exempt. The RTA provides that tenants should be advised in the tenancy agreement 2 what the current level of compliance is and should be able to rely on that. This means that a tenant can make an informed decision when taking a house on whether the house meets their needs and expectations, and they can take into account the way that they live in their homes. I also note that although the landlord now submits that the space between the ceiling and the window is too small to install a rangehood they did not give evidence, such as showing me what the requirements would be for installing a rangehood and then explain why one could not be installed. There is also evidence that at one time there was an extractor fan in the kitchen (evidenced by the outlet).

What compensation or exemplary damages should be awarded?

The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach. • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must consider the factors set out in section 109 (3) RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person • The effect of the unlawful act 2 Section 13(1CA)(b) RTA • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest.
The failure to maintain the house to a reasonable standard and comply with Healthy Homes Standards meant that the tenant had been living and paying for housing that was quite bluntly below minimum standard yet was paying rent that was equivalent with an executive level home.
I recognise that the tenant has been compensated for some of the breaches already (gravel driveway and pest control) and cleaning at the beginning of the tenancy, but I consider that the tenant suffered a lack of amenity for this home that was not trivial. Whilst some of these items have been remedied within 3 months, other were only remedied shortly before the hearing. I consider that a rent abatement of $75.00per week for 52 weeks should be credited to tenant to compensate for the breaches of section 45 (1)(b) and 45(1)(bb) RTA. This amounts to $3900.00 in compensation. This reflects the sheer number of defects, and nature of the defects at the beginning of the tenancy and the ongoing problems.

Should exemplary damages be awarded for the breaches?

I have found that the landlord failed to comply with Healthy Homes Standards and failed to provide the property in a reasonable condition. Breaches under s45(1)(b) Failure to maintain, and s45(1)(bb) -Failure to meet Healthy Homes Standards are both breaches under s 45(1A) RTA to which exemplary damages of up to $7200.00 may be awarded.
The District Court has held that when there are multiple breaches under this section (section 45(1A) RTA) that the maximum award is $7,200.00. 3
Exemplary damages can be awarded as well as compensation.
I award the tenant $3500.00 for this failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards, in coming to this award I have taken into account the following factors: • The number of defects and that some of the defects, such as having no oven and the gas pigtail being broken and the lack of extractor fan in the kitchen were significant. • That the landlord had a high level of intentionality – I consider that almost all of these failures resulted from the landlord’s failure to inspect and document the condition of the property at the end of the previous tenancy and or the beginning of this tenancy. Had the landlord inspected the property at the beginning of the tenancy then they would have noticed 3 Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583. almost all of the issues and I trust have taken steps to remedy them. I consider that all of the defects would have been evident to a competent property manager undertaking an inspection and documenting the condition of the property at the beginning of the tenancy. • The communication between the tenant and the landlord shows that the tenant raised these issues with the landlord straight away and on a regular basis, whilst sometimes the tenant’s expectations were higher than the landlord’s obligations in the RTA, this did not excuse the landlord from carrying out basic maintenance items such as gutter cleaning. • The landlord took too long to deal with the issues. The tenant had to send through lists of the problems and then resend them or deal with someone different. The tenant had to deal with multiple people coming to the home to assess damage, or problems This was stressful and time consuming. • I observed a pattern of denial, deflection and delay in the way that the landlord dealt with any concern raised by the tenant. Perhaps the best example of this was with the mechanical ventilation issue in the kitchen. The tenant repeatedly told the landlord that there was no rangehood, but the landlord insisted that because the 2022 recorded that there was one there, that the must be one. Despite the tenant raising these concerns the property managers did not go to the property to actually check the rangehood. It was not until there was a hearing by video and the tenant showed the tribunal that the outlet was simply a standard power point not the power for a rangehood that’ was not visible’ that the landlord took the concern seriously. In relation to other issues such as the insulation not being present the landlord sought to blame the tenant because the tenant had not allowed access until the 29 August, 21 days after the landlord’s Healthy Homes report dated August 2025 because the tenant was overseas and busy with his business, yet the landlord totally disregarded the fact that they had not complied with the Healthy Homes standards for 11 months before that. • I have taken into account that the tenant has been compensated for some of the issues and the parties were able to resolve matters between themselves. • I have also considered that the failure of the tenant to pay rent regularly and the withholding of rent in all likelihood also contributed to the delay in having work done. The landlords relied on the rent as their income to meet maintenance request from the income. • That there is public interest in ensuring that landlords comply with the standards that when they don’t that there is a sufficient amount awarded so as to act as a deterrent to other landlords.

Should the tenancy be terminated for rent arrears?

The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy due to the tenant’s rent arrears and that as at the date of the landlord’s application the tenant was more than 21 days in arrears.
As at the date of the hearing (28 August 2025) the tenant was not in arrears, he had paid back any rent arrears.
The tenant stopped paying rent as a lever to try and get action at the property. Whilst the Tribunal does not condone such behaviour, it is not difficult in this instance to understand why the tenant felt that this was his only option.
I note that the tenant also missed some rent payments due to late payments by creditors in his business. This was not acceptable, and as recorded above, when a tenant does not pay their rent then it can make it difficult for a landlord to meet their obligations in respect of maintenance.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for termination on the basis that at the time the tenant had a set off as a result of the landlord’s breaches. 4 I also note that the tenant had paid all arears by the date of the hearing. Other issues
I understand that the landlord has given the tenant a 90 day notice to end the tenancy. The landlord says that it wants to terminate the tenancy so it can renovate the property, and that it has engaged contractors to do this work. Name suppression and filing fee.
The tenant has been mostly successful in his claims, and I award him the filing fee and grant name suppression as requested.
The landlord has not been successful in this claim. The owner’s requested name suppression. I consider that many of the failings for the owners have arisen from the conduct of the former property manager/s, not because of the owner’s or the current property manager’s conduct. I consider it unfair to name the current property manager [redacted] who has to some degree, tried to resolve the problems.
I do not grant name suppression to Oaks Property Management Limited or the owners of the property because: •They have been unsuccessful. 4 O’Shea v Brown [2001]RTHNZ 19 •It is in the public interest because tenants who are looking to rent properties through agencies should be aware of adverse findings made against those property management firms and landlords.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5228911 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5228911 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the property provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair?

Is the home healthy homes compliant?

What compensation or exemplary damages should be awarded?

Should exemplary damages be awarded for the breaches?

Should the tenancy be terminated for rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the property provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair?

Is the home healthy homes compliant?

What compensation or exemplary damages should be awarded?

Should exemplary damages be awarded for the breaches?

Should the tenancy be terminated for rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions