What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5241118 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 5241118?

Compensation: Failure to maintain th…: $1,700.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5241118?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Smoke alarms, State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5241118?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12829928-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5241118 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 5241118?

Compensation: Failure to maintain th…: $1,700.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5241118?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Smoke alarms, State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5241118?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12829928-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

30 Wake Road, Coatesville, RD 3, Coatesville 0793 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5241118 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5241118 — net $7,127.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards	$3,000.00	46. Taking all of these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $3,000.00 in exemplary damages.
Compensation: Failure to maintain the internal wall	$1,700.00	Failure to maintain the internal wall
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with smoke alarm regulations	$2,400.00	100. Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $2,400.00 in exemplary damages.
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,127.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,127.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5241118 — net $7,127.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards	$3,000.00	46. Taking all of these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $3,000.00 in exemplary damages.
Compensation: Failure to maintain the internal wall	$1,700.00	Failure to maintain the internal wall
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with smoke alarm regulations	$2,400.00	100. Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $2,400.00 in exemplary damages.
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,127.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,127.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
José Webster is added as a landlord party to these proceedings.
Peter Webster, José Webster must pay [The tenant/s] $7,127.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 17 November 2025. A lot of evidence and submissions were made. Whilst this decision might not refer to all of it, the parties can be assured I have considered it when reaching my decision.
The tenant’s application only records Peter Webster as the landlord however, José Webster was involved with this tenancy, attended the hearing and made most of the submissions. It is appropriate that they be added as a landlord party to these proceedings.
The landlord and tenant used to be friends. When the tenant separated from their partner and needed a place to stay, the landlord offered the premises to the tenant for $400.00 per week. The arrangement was only meant to be temporary however, it endured for over a year from 19 February 2024 – 14 April 2025. The premises used to be a book warehouse, but were converted into a residential unit and workshop before the landlord purchased the property. No tenancy agreement was signed by the parties.
The tenant claims the premises are unlawful and not consented for residential use. They also claim that fumes from the neighbouring workshop entered the premises and were unpleasant. The tenant claims the premises did not comply with the healthy homes standards or smoke alarm regulations. Further, the tenant claims the installation of a gas bottle in the kitchen was unsafe and the termination notice issued by the landlord was retaliatory. The issues I must determine are: a. Is the premises an unlawful residential premises? b. Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards? c. Did the landlord fail to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety? d. Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? e. Did the landlord fail to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises? f. Did the landlord fail to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016? g. Was the termination notice retaliatory?
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages for these alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Compensation & Exemplary Damages: The law generally
Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy. Relevant factors as to quantum are: 1 • The nature of the breach. • The duration of the breach. • The effect of the breach on the other party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and deter. 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.
Under the RTA, exemplary damages may be ordered for certain unlawful acts. The Tribunal must determine the unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just to order exemplary damages. Relevant factors are: 2 a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first been served on the tenant. The District Court held: 3 Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view 1 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 109(3). 3 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
The District Court accepted the unlawful entry was made in error and on that basis, there was no intention established. Therefore, exemplary damages could not be ordered.
The usual approach of the Tribunal is to order one third of the maximum amount of exemplary damages, unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 4 Standard of proof
As the applicant, the tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. 4 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781. TENANT’S CLAIMS

Is the premises an unlawful residential premises?

The law

Section 78A RTA defines unlawful residential premises as residential premises that are used for the occupation of a person as a place of residence but: 5 a. 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 b. Where the landlord’s failure to comply with the landlord’s obligations under section 36 or 45(1)(c) has caused the occupation by that person to be unlawful or has contributed to that unlawful occupation.
Section 36 RTA requires a landlord 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 45(1)(c) 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.
The first step in determining whether premises are unlawful requires a finding that the whole property has some sort of regulatory failure, which means it cannot be occupied for residential purposes. In other words, the unlawfulness has to be more than, say, just an outstanding permit for a bathroom. 6
Prior cases where the Tribunal has found premises to be unlawful appear to fall broadly into one or more of the following categories: a. Unconsented premises. In other words, premises where there has been no building consent or resource consent for the premises at all. b. Premises where an abatement notice or dangerous and insanitary building notice has been issued by the Council. c. Cases where garages, basement conversions or parts of premises being used as a larger household unit have been converted for residential use and then rented out as a separate household unit, without Council consent as to the change of use. The premises themselves may have had the necessary building consents but there is no Council approval for the use of the premises as a separate household unit. 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 78A. 6 Mansfield v Silk and another [020] NZTT 4246581, at [16].
Regulation 6 of the Buildings (Specified Systems, Change the Use, and Earthquake-prone Buildings) Regulations 2005 states that every building or part of a building has a use as specified in the table in Schedule 2 of the regulations. The following uses in Schedule 2 are relevant for residential purposes: SA (Sleeping Accommodation) spaces providing transient accommodation, or whether limited assistance or care is provided for people motels, hotels, hostels, boarding houses, clubs (residential), boarding schools, dormitories, halls, wharenui SR (Sleeping Residential) attached and multi-unit residential dwellings, including household units attached to spaces or dwellings with the same or other uses, such as caretakers’ flats, and residential accommodation above a shop multi-unit dwellings, flats, or apartments SH (Sleeping Single Home) detached dwellings where people live as a single household or family, including attached self-contained spaces such as granny flats when occupied by a member of the same family, and garages (whether detached or part of the same building) if primarily for storage of the occupants’ vehicles, tools, and garden implements dwellings or houses separated from each other by distance Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the premises do not have building or resource consent and should not be used as a residential dwelling. The tenant also claims the consented use of the premises is SH (sleeping single home) and there has been an unconsented change in use to SR (sleeping residential), because the tenant occupied the premises as a separate household unit.
The landlord gave evidence that when they purchased the premises, the former book warehouse was already converted into a residential unit and workshop. The landlord did not undertake the renovation themselves and they assume it has the relevant consents to operate as a separate, residential dwelling. Analysis
The fact that the premises used to be a book warehouse raises a question about whether they have building or resource consent. The premises are directly next door to a commercial workshop, which is unusual. There is no firewall between the unit and workshop, which is cause for concern. Further, there is only one letterbox, one bin and one set of rates for the entire property. All of these things indicated that premises might be an unlawful residential premises.
The Tribunal is usually assisted by a Land Information Memorandum (LIM) or Property Information Memorandum (PIM) to help it determine whether premises are an unlawful residential premises. These documents are available to the public upon request. Other helpful information is communication directly from the Council about the consents that exist for the premises and their consented use. In the absence of any evidence from the Council confirming what building and resource consents the premises have or what the consented use of the premises is, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the premises are an unlawful residential premises.
The tenant has not proven this claim and it is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

The law

Section 45(1)(bb) RTA requires a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards.
The healthy homes standards are found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. The regulations set minimum standards for insulation, heating, ventilation, draughts, moisture ingress and drainage.
The tenancy began on 19 February 2024. The premises needed to comply with the healthy homes standards 120 days from this date. Evidence and submissions from the parties
Both parties accept there was no extractor fan or mechanical ventilation in the kitchen or bathroom.
The tenant gave evidence there was a lot of mould in the premises and water leaked into the property. The tenant claims water ran down the wall near the back door and ruined a rug they placed there. The tenant also claims some windows were boarded up and other louvre windows were very draughty.
The landlord submitted a healthy homes report completed by Oncore on 5 August 2025. It notes the following areas of non-compliance: a. Moisture and ingress: gutters blocked and drainpipes not fixed to the home. b. Draughts in some windows in the lounge/living area. c. No extractor fan or mechanical ventilation in the bathroom.
The landlord gave evidence they believed the due date for compliance with the healthy homes standards was 1 July 2025. They did not envisage the tenancy lasting as long as it did, nor did they appreciate the RTA applied, because they believed the situation to be informal. Analysis
There was a kitchen in the premises during the tenancy, which had a gas hob. The healthy homes standards require kitchens to have an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation. 7 Qualifying ventilation means mechanical ventilation that meets certain standards. 8 The landlord accepts there was no extractor fan or mechanical ventilation in the kitchen. For this reason, I find the kitchen did not comply with the healthy homes standards.
The healthy homes standards also require bathrooms to have an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation. The landlord accepts the bathroom did not have either of these. The healthy homes report dated 5 August 2025 notes the bathroom as an area of non-compliance. I find the bathroom did not comply with the healthy homes standards either.
The healthy homes report dated 5 August 2025 notes that the gutters are obstructed and some downpipes are not fixed to the home. The healthy homes standards require rental premises to have a drainage system that efficiently drains storm water, surface water and ground water to an appropriate outfall. 9 I accept the findings in the report and find the gutters and downpipes did not comply with the healthy homes standards. 7 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, regulation 23. 8 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, regulation 3. 9 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, regulation 27.
The report dated 5 August 2025 also notes there are unreasonable gaps in the windows in the lounge/living room. The healthy homes standards require windows to be free from unreasonable gaps. 10 I accept the findings in the report and find the premises did not comply with the draught stopping requirements in the healthy homes standards.
The tenant gave evidence there was mould all over their furniture when they exited the tenancy. No photographs of this were submitted. The tenant also claims there was mould all over the walls. The tenant submitted one photograph of what they claim is a wall. Mould is apparent however, the quality of the photograph is not good. It is a close-up and I cannot tell where in the house it was taken. The tenant also submitted photographs of the windows, which show dark marks around the window frames. This could be mould, but it could also be dirt. The windows appear dirty, because there are a lot of cobwebs around them.
Pervasive mould is often an indication that the premises do not comply with the insulation requirements in the healthy homes standards. The tenant claims this is the case however, no expert evidence was submitted to support this. The healthy homes report dated 5 August 2025 states the premises are compliant with the insulation requirements. The report was completed approximately 3.5 months after the tenancy ended. Despite this gap in time, I am satisfied it provides an accurate account of the state of the premises during the tenancy. This is because no work was undertaken on the premises until late October 2025. I accept the findings in the report and am convinced the premises complied with the insulation requirements in the healthy homes standards.
To conclude, I find the premises did not comply with the ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping requirements in the healthy homes standards.
I deal with the issue of monetary relief by way of exemplary damages. Should exemplary damages be ordered
Failure to comply with the healthy homes standards is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 may be ordered. 11
A tenant cannot apply for exemplary damages later than 12 months after the date of the commission of the unlawful act. 12 The date of the unlawful act is the date on which the act or omission that constitutes the breach occurred. For continuing breaches, it may be the date the breach started or ended, depending upon the circumstances. 10 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, regulation 26. 11 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A. 12 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 109(2)(b).
The premises needed to comply with the healthy homes standards within 120 days from the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord had an ongoing obligation to ensure the premises complied. The breach was a continuing breach and therefore, I find the date of the unlawful act to be 14 April 2025, which is the date the tenancy ended. The tenant filed their application on 18 April 2025, which is within 12 months of this date.
I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to comply with the healthy homes standards. The landlord does not appear to have appreciated that the RTA applied to the relationship governing the parties. This is no excuse. The landlord might have intended the arrangement to be temporary, but in reality, it lasted just over one year. The landlord had a responsibility to educate themselves about the nature of the situation and their obligations under the RTA. By failing to do so and not taking any steps to ensure compliance with the healthy homes standards, I find the landlord acted intentionally.
It is just to order exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The premises were non-compliant in four respects. This is an aggravating factor. b. The length of non-compliance. The premises needed to be compliant within 120 days of the tenancy beginning. The tenancy lasted just over one year. The premises were non-compliant for the majority of the tenancy. c. The non-compliance detracted from the amenity of the premises. The tenant submitted evidence of water entering the premises by the backdoor. This was most likely a result of the breach of the moisture ingress and drainage requirements. Not being able to properly ventilate the kitchen and bathroom would also have detracted from the amenity of the premises. Similarly, draughts from the unreasonable gaps in the windows would have made it more difficult to heat the premises. d. It is in the public interest to ensure landlords are deterred from failing to comply with the healthy homes standards.
Taking all of these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $3,000.00 in exemplary damages. Did the landlord fail to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety? The law
A landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety. 13
The Hazardous Substances (Hazardous Property Controls) Notice 2017 prescribes requirements to ensure that hazardous substances are stored and used in a manner that protects the environment, and people in places other than workplaces, to which the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 applies. Clause 25 deals with the storage or use of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). It states: A person in charge of a place where LPG is located, must ensure that the amount stored does not exceed the maximum quantity or maximum cylinder size specified alongside the description of the place in Schedule 5.
Schedule 5 states that the maximum cylinder size for a detached house or single storey attached dwelling is 10kg and the maximum quantity of LPG is 20kg per dwelling. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims a gas bottle was stored inside the premises underneath the gas hob in the kitchen. The tenant gave evidence this goes against “the regulations”, is unsafe and gas bottles should be stored outside. When asked what regulation or piece of law the tenant relied on to support their claim, they were unsure, but believed it was unlawful to store gas bottles inside residential premises.
The landlord accepts a small gas bottle was stored underneath the kitchen bench in a cupboard. The bottle supplied gas to a gas stove on top of the kitchen bench. The landlord gave evidence the tenant never used the gas hob and only used the slow cooker or got takeaways. Analysis
At the hearing, both parties seem to have assumed that storage of a gas bottle inside the premises was unlawful however, this is not necessarily the case.
Clause 5 and Schedule 5 of the Hazardous Substances (Hazardous Property Controls) Notice 2017 states a 10kg gas cylinder may be stored or used inside a detached house or single storey attached dwelling. The only qualification is that the maximum quantity must not exceed 20kg. In other words, no more than two 10kg gas cylinders may be stored inside the premises. 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1)(c).
No evidence was given about the size of the gas cylinder at the hearing however, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities it was a 9kg gas cylinder. This is because the cupboard in which it was stored is small and unlikely to have fit anything larger.
The premises are a detached house and a 10kg gas cylinder was permitted to be stored inside. No evidence was given that there was more than one 10kg gas cylinder stored inside the premises.
For these reasons, I find the landlord did not breach section 45(1)(c) RTA.
This claim is dismissed. Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? The law
Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
It is well settled that a landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and fix it. 14
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 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. 15 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 16
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 17 Evidence and submissions of the parties 14 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 15 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 16 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 17 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
The tenant claims the landlord did not maintain the diving wall between the unit and workshop in a reasonable state of repair. They claim there was a gap at the top of the wall by the ceiling, which meant fumes from the neighbouring workshop entered the premises. The tenant also claims there was only one piece of jib, and the wall was not properly lined on the other side. This resulted in the tenant being disturbed by noises in the workshop and snoring when the neighbour was asleep.
The tenant claims the air quality in the premises was poor as a result of the fumes. The tenant claims nothing was done to fix the wall and the eventually filled the gap with silicone themselves.
The landlord accepts there is a small gap in the dividing wall near the ceiling and there is only jib on one side of the framing. The landlord accepts they did not do anything to fix the wall. The landlord claims the tenant’s complaint was about the neighbour intentionally spraying chemicals near the gap in the wall into the tenant’s premises. The landlord took steps to confirm this was not happening and they believed this resolved the problem. Analysis
The tenant submitted photographs of the dividing wall. A small gap is noticeable at the top of the wall near the ceiling. There is no jib across the framing on the side of the wall that is inside the workshop. I find the wall was in a poor state of repair and needed fixing. Walls are usually constructed to run from the floor to the ceiling with no gaps at either end. They are also usually constructed to have jib on both sides of the framing. Whether the tenant knew about the state of the wall at the beginning of the tenancy is irrelevant. Prior knowledge of a defect does not negate a landlord’s duty to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The landlord knew about the condition of the wall at the beginning of the tenancy. This means the landlord did not need to be notified about it by the tenant or receive a specific request from them to fix it. The landlord had an obligation to repair the wall within a reasonable timeframe from the beginning of the tenancy. The tenancy began on 19 February 2024 and ended on 14 April 2025. Nothing was done to fix the wall within this timeframe. A delay of approximately 14 months is unreasonable. I find the landlord failed to provide and maintain the wall in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord’s breach. When considering the amount of compensation, I need to consider the effect of the breach on the tenant.
There was a lot of disagreement between the parties about whether the neighbour spraypainted cars inside the workshop. The tenant gave evidence that the neighbour painted cars inside the workshop. They called a witness, Jason Bennett, who gave evidence that they saw the neighbour painting a red truck once. Mr Bennett gave evidence the truck was halfway inside the garage roller door, which means it was partially inside the workshop. Mr Bennett worked with the tenant and used to drive to the premises most mornings to carpool with them. Mr Bennett gave evidence that he went inside the premises most mornings for approximately 15 minutes. He observed a number of things, including a chemical smell.
The landlord denies the neighbour painted cars inside the workshop and claims the photographs they took prove this. There is a lot of dust inside the workshop. The landlord claims the neighbour would not have painted cars with so much dust. The landlord also submitted a letter from the neighbour, which states they did not use spray paint inside the workshop due to dust and paint jobs were sent away.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the neighbour painted a red car inside the workshop on one occasion, but no more than this. The evidence of Mr Bennett supports this. Whilst the letter from the neighbour states no painting was completed at the workshop, the landlord did not call the neighbour as a witness. This means the neighbour was unavailable to be cross-examined and their evidence was not tested. In contrast, Mr Bennett gave evidence in person and was available for cross-examination. For this reason, I prefer the evidence of Mr Bennett, which was consistent with the tenant’s evidence. I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that painting inside the workshop happened more than once. No supporting evidence to this effect was submitted.
I accept that painting the car on the one occasion inside the workshop produced a chemical smell. I consider it likely the smell leaked into the tenant’s premises through the gap in the wall.
I am also convinced on the balance of probabilities that other activities carried out by the neighbour, such as the use of filler when panel beating, produced a chemical smell that leaked into the tenant’s premises through the gap in the wall. Mr Bennett gave evidence that he noticed a chemical smell when he visited the premises in the morning. This evidence supports the tenant’s evidence about there being a chemical smell.
The tenant purchased an air quality machine and air filter during the tenancy. They submitted photographs of both. The air quality machine shows readings taken at various times for: a. HCHO, which is volatile organic compounds. b. TVOC, which is total volatile organic compounds. c. CO², which is carbon dioxide.
The tenant claims the readings for all of these things are high in the photographs submitted however, the tenant is not an expert in this area. I found the photographs of the readings difficult to interpret without the assistance of expert evidence. The landlord submitted counter evidence obtained from the internet, which states that volatile organic compounds and carbon dioxide are emitted from the human body, including by farting. The landlord claims this is another explanation for the readings. The landlord also claims the tenant completed some carpentry work inside the premises, which might have contributed to the levels. The tenant gave evidence they made walking sticks and used methylated spirits and oil stain.
On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced the readings taken show dangerously high levels of volatile organic compounds or carbon dioxide. I am also not convinced that the readings are solely attributable to activities carried out in the neighbouring workshop.
The tenant gave evidence that they could hear noise from the workshop through the wall and could hear the neighbour snoring when they were sleeping. The tenant knew the premises were directly next door to a panel beating workshop, so a degree of noise was reasonably foreseeable however, I accept the noise was most likely louder than usual, because there was only jib on one side. I also accept the tenant could hear the neighbour snoring.
To conclude, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to provide and maintain the wall in a reasonable state of repair. I am also convinced that the condition of the wall contributed to chemical smells permeating from the workshop into the tenant’s unit, as well as heightened levels of noise. I am not convinced that chemicals reached dangerously high levels.
Considering all of these factors, I find $1,700.00 to be a reasonable amount of compensation.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered. 18
A tenant cannot apply for exemplary damages later than 12 months after the date of the commission of the unlawful act. 19 The date of the unlawful act is the date on which the act or omission that constitutes the breach occurred.
The landlord knew about the state of repair of the wall at the beginning of the tenancy on 19 February 2024. A reasonable timeframe for repair would have been one month, up to 19 March 2024. I treat this as the date of the commission 18 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A. 19 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 109(2)(b). of the unlawful. The tenant’s application was filed on 18 April 2025, which is more than 12 months later. Therefore, I cannot order exemplary damages. Did the landlord fail to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises?
The tenant claims the panel beating business resulted in fumes coming into the tenant’s premises. The tenant also claims the business was noisy and they could hear the neighbour snoring at nighttime. The tenant claims this affected their quiet enjoyment.
I have already considered these complaints by the tenant under the claim that the landlord failed to provide and maintain the wall in a reasonable state of repair. I decline to deal with them again under a different heading. To order compensation for the same thing twice is not fair to the landlord. When determining the level of compensation awarded to the tenant in relation to the wall, I have considered the effect that the smell and noise had on their ability to use and enjoy the premises.
For this reason, this claim is dismissed. Did the landlord fail to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016? The law
Section 45(1)(ba) RTA requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A. The Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 are regulations made under this section.
Regulations 5 states: 5Smoke alarms to be qualifying smoke alarms and installed in certain locations: tenancies other than boarding house tenancies (1)The requirements set out in subclauses (4), (6), and (8) are imposed on all landlords for the purposes of section 45(1)(ba) of the Act. (2)The requirements must be met as at the commencement of the tenancy and at all subsequent times during the tenancy. ... (4)Every smoke alarm that is installed at the premises must be a qualifying smoke alarm. ... (6)There must be at least 1 qualifying smoke alarm installed – (a) in the sleeping space; or (b) otherwise at the premises within 3 metres of the entrance (or main entrance) to the sleeping space. ... (8)There must be at least 1 qualifying smoke alarm installed on the storey or level in the habitable space or in at least 1 of the habitable spaces (as the case may be).
Regulation 2 defines “habitable space” as “an interior space of a building that is a space for activities normally associated with domestic living.” Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant gave evidence there were no smoke alarms in the premises for the entire tenancy.
The landlord gave evidence that they installed three smoke alarms in the premises approximately 2 – 3 years ago. One in the hallway, bedroom and kitchen. The landlord accepts they did not make sure of the presence of smoke alarms at the beginning of the tenancy. Analysis
Usually, a claim like this is easy to determine, because an entry inspection report and photographs will show whether any smoke alarms are present. Unfortunately, there is no entry report or photographs in this case.
A landlord has an obligation to proactively ensure the premises have qualifying smoke alarms at the beginning and during the tenancy. The landlord does not appear to have paid much attention to this issue. They accept they did not thoroughly check the premises to ensure there were smoke alarms at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant is adamant they did not remove any smoke alarms during the tenancy and the landlord accepts there were no smoke alarms at the end. The parties agree a painter visited the premises before the tenancy began, which provides a reasonable explanation as to why any pre-existing smoke alarms might have been removed. I have considered all of the evidence and am convinced on the balance of probabilities the premises did not have qualifying smoke alarms during the tenancy.
I find the landlord has breached section 45(1)(ba) RTA.
I deal with the issue of monetary relief by way of exemplary damages.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered. 20
The date of the unlawful act is the date on which the act or omission that constitutes the breach occurred. For continuing breaches, it may be the date the breach started or ended, depending upon the circumstances.
Failure to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 is a continuing breach. A landlord must ensure compliance at the beginning and during the tenancy. The date of the unlawful act therefore continues for as long as the landlord fails to meet their obligation. For this reason, I determine the date of the unlawful act to be 14 April 2025, which is the end of the tenancy. The tenant filed their application within 12 months of this date.
I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to ensure qualifying smoke alarms were present at the beginning and during the tenancy. The landlord accepts they did not thoroughly check whether there were smoke alarms at the beginning or during the tenancy. A landlord has a duty to proactively ensure rental premises have qualifying smoke alarms. By taking a casual attitude towards compliance, I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to comply.
It is just to order exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The lack of qualifying smoke alarms was a serious health and safety risk. Qualifying smoke alarms are important to prevent injury to the tenant, their property and the premises in the event of a fire. b. The premises were without qualifying smoke alarms for approximately 14 months. c. There is a high public interest in ensuring landlords are deterred from failing to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. d. Fortunately, there was no fire at the premises.
Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $2,400.00 in exemplary damages.

Is the termination notice retaliatory?

The law 20 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Scheduled 1A.

When determining if a notice to end a tenancy is retaliatory, the Tribunal must consider the following matters: 21 a. Whether the notice to end the tenancy complies with section 51 RTA; b. Whether the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenancy by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy; and c. Whether the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority, or remedy, or the making by the tenant of any such complaint, was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord sent the tenant a 90-day termination notice on 1 March 2025, which the tenant claims is retaliatory. The tenant claims the notice was sent in response to complaints they made about the wall and air quality.
The landlord denies the termination notice was retaliatory and claims they needed the premises for their son, who was experiencing marital difficulties. Analysis
The tenant sent the landlord a 14-day notice complaining about the wall and smell of chemicals on 23 October 2024. The termination notice was sent on 1 March 2025, approximately 4 – 5 months later. This gap in time suggests the termination notice was not motivated by the 14-day notice.
The tenant submitted a copy of a text message they sent to the landlord on 17 February 2025. In it, the tenant sent the landlord a photograph of the air quality reader and states that the alarm on the machine has gone off twice. The landlord advises that they are contacting an air quality consultant to assist. The termination notice was sent two weeks later however, I am not convinced it was motivated by this complaint. This is because the tenant had been complaining about the wall and smell of chemicals for a long time. If this were the reason for ending the tenancy, I consider it more likely than not that the termination notice would have been sent some time ago.
The landlord submitted a signed letter from their son, stating that in February 2025, they experienced marital and other personal difficulties. They discussed 21 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 54. moving into the premises with their parents however, after the tenant filed their application with the Tribunal, their parents were reluctant to allow this.
The landlord has provided a reasonable explanation for ending the tenancy and has submitted supporting evidence from their son. This, coupled with the length of time between the tenant’s 14-day notice and termination notice means I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities the termination notice is retaliatory.
This claim is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason I must grant his request for name suppression.
The landlord requested name suppression on the basis that any adverse finding would negatively affect their reputation.
I have a discretion to grant the landlord name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
The fact an adverse finding by the Tribunal against the landlord might negatively affect their reputation is an ordinary and natural consequence. It is not special or extraordinary. I find the public’s interest in publication outweighs the landlord’s interest in suppression. For this reason, their application for name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5241118 — Healthy homes at 30 Wake Road, Coatesville, RD 3, Coatesville 0793

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5241118 — Healthy homes at 30 Wake Road, Coatesville, RD 3, Coatesville 0793

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the premises an unlawful residential premises?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Is the termination notice retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the premises an unlawful residential premises?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Is the termination notice retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions