What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5241294 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5241294?

Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5241294?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages, State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5241294?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12464402-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5241294 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5241294?

Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5241294?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages, State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5241294?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12464402-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

50 Cosgrave Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5241294 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5241294 — net $4,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: failure to maintain	$500.00	failure to maintain
Exemplary damages: breach of HHS	$2,500.00	breach of HHS
Exemplary damages: giving retaliatory notice	$1,500.00	giving retaliatory notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,527.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Adam Mead must pay [The tenant/s] $4,527.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 21 October 2025: a. Seal the off gap around the hot water pipe; b. Fix the rusty gutters and seal the holes in the gutters; c. Fix the leaking/rusty downpipes; and d. Fix the toilet louvre window to prevent draught
As an alternative to compliance with Order 2, the landlord must pay the tenant $5,000.00 immediately.
The 90 days notice by the landlord issued on 27 March 2025 is declared retaliatory and of no effect.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 11 August and 24 September 2025.
The tenant seeks to invalidate the landlord’s 27 March 2025 notice on grounds that it is retaliatory.
A June 2024 report by Habitat for Humanity suggests that the premises is mouldy and does not comply with the Healthy Homes Standard (‘HHS’).
The tenant seek compensation and exemplary damages against the landlord for breaching the HHS, failure to maintain and for giving a retaliatory notice.
The tenant also want the problems to do with mice infestation and mice getting into the house fixed. The tenant contends that the HHS standards in respect of insulation, draught-stopping, moisture ingress and drainage have not been met by the landlord; the tenant wants the landlord to ensure that the premises is HHS compliant.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord must: a) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; b) comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016; and c) comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
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 tenant/s] claims that landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard, the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard, and insulation standards.
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 Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
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.
All private rentals must comply with the HHS by 1 July 2025.
The landlord adduced a Healthy Homes Assessment report dated 25 August 2025 from Healthy Homes NZ inspector John Peng.
The report confirms that the HHS standards in respect of moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping have not been met.
I find that the landlord committed an unlawful act under section 45(1A) RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The gutters are not in good condition in that there are rusty and has some small holes. The down pipe is also rusty and the HHS inspector identified leaks in the downpipes or gully traps. A louvre window in the toilet is causing draughts.
The gutters, downpipes and toilet window need to be fixed to be HHS compliant.
Having regard to the particular non-compliance with the HHS, the effect of the unlawful act to the tenant, the interest of the tenant and the public interest that mandatory HHS requirements are met, I award exemplary damages of $2,500.00 against the landlord.
I also award general damages of $500.00 to the tenant for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises, in particular for failure to seal the off gap around the hot water pipe which enabled mice to enter the premises. While the conclusions of Tony Walker of Walkers Pest Control Ltd are that during the inspection conducted on 5 September 2025, there is no rodent infestation, there is a hole in the floor of the cupboard with access to under the house where a water pipe ran through the floor which was not sealed. The pest controller’s report indicates that rodents can access the house through that unsealed gap in the pipe.
In addition to the above monetary orders, I also order the landlord to carry out these remedial work to the premises by 21 October 2025: a. Seal the off gap around the hot water pipe; b. Fix the rusty gutters and seal the holes in the gutters; c. Fix the leaking/rusty downpipes; and d. Fix the toilet louvre window to prevent draught.

Did the landlord issue a retaliatory notice?

On 27 March 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 28 June 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord says that he was not motivated by the tenant exercising their rights when he issued the tenant with the 90 days’ notice. The landlord wanted to undertake extensive renovations to the premises which requires the tenant to vacate the premises.
However, I find that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant’s exercise of their rights under the tenancy agreement when he issued the 90 days’ notice to the tenant.
The landlord was already aware of the conclusions of the June 2024 report by Habitat for Humanity which indicated that the premises is mouldy and does not comply with the Healthy Homes Standard on various aspects. The non- compliance has been confirmed by the recent Healthy Homes Assessment report dated 25 August 2025 from Healthy Homes NZ inspector John Peng.
Ahead of the date for mandatory compliance of HHS standards on 1 July 2025, the landlord issued the 90 day notice to the tenant. Most of the other more substantial works proposed by the landlord which required the tenant to vacate the premises, are not necessary for the purposes of compliance with HHS.
I find that despite the landlord’s stated reasons for giving of the notice, the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant exercising their rights under the RTA for the premises to be HHS compliant.
I accept the tenant’s submission that the landlord seems to using the major renovation works as pretext for not meeting their obligations under section 45(1A) RTA on the HHS.
I therefore find the landlord have committed an unlawful act in issuing a retaliatory notice.
Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so taking into account the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. For completeness giving of a retaliatory notice does not have to be intentional to award exemplary damages for a breach. See section 109(3) and (3A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Having regard to those factors, I find that an award of exemplary damages in the sum of $1,500.00 to be just and appropriate.
The tenant wish to stay and seek an order to invalidate the notice on grounds that it is retaliatory.
I accede to the tenant’s claim for an order declaring the notice as retaliatory, set aside the notice as retaliatory and award exemplary damages for the unlawful act committed by the landlord.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.
I reject the tenant’s claim that the landlord failed to comply with HHS insulation standards. I accept the building inspector’s report that the insulation on the premises either complies with or is otherwise exempt from the HHS insulation standard.
Because the tenant are substantially successful on their claims, I order suppression of the tenant’s names and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5241294 — net $4,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: failure to maintain	$500.00	failure to maintain
Exemplary damages: breach of HHS	$2,500.00	breach of HHS
Exemplary damages: giving retaliatory notice	$1,500.00	giving retaliatory notice
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,527.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Adam Mead must pay [The tenant/s] $4,527.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 21 October 2025: a. Seal the off gap around the hot water pipe; b. Fix the rusty gutters and seal the holes in the gutters; c. Fix the leaking/rusty downpipes; and d. Fix the toilet louvre window to prevent draught
As an alternative to compliance with Order 2, the landlord must pay the tenant $5,000.00 immediately.
The 90 days notice by the landlord issued on 27 March 2025 is declared retaliatory and of no effect.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 11 August and 24 September 2025.
The tenant seeks to invalidate the landlord’s 27 March 2025 notice on grounds that it is retaliatory.
A June 2024 report by Habitat for Humanity suggests that the premises is mouldy and does not comply with the Healthy Homes Standard (‘HHS’).
The tenant seek compensation and exemplary damages against the landlord for breaching the HHS, failure to maintain and for giving a retaliatory notice.
The tenant also want the problems to do with mice infestation and mice getting into the house fixed. The tenant contends that the HHS standards in respect of insulation, draught-stopping, moisture ingress and drainage have not been met by the landlord; the tenant wants the landlord to ensure that the premises is HHS compliant.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord must: a) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; b) comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016; and c) comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
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 tenant/s] claims that landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard, the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard, and insulation standards.
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 Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
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.
All private rentals must comply with the HHS by 1 July 2025.
The landlord adduced a Healthy Homes Assessment report dated 25 August 2025 from Healthy Homes NZ inspector John Peng.
The report confirms that the HHS standards in respect of moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping have not been met.
I find that the landlord committed an unlawful act under section 45(1A) RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The gutters are not in good condition in that there are rusty and has some small holes. The down pipe is also rusty and the HHS inspector identified leaks in the downpipes or gully traps. A louvre window in the toilet is causing draughts.
The gutters, downpipes and toilet window need to be fixed to be HHS compliant.
Having regard to the particular non-compliance with the HHS, the effect of the unlawful act to the tenant, the interest of the tenant and the public interest that mandatory HHS requirements are met, I award exemplary damages of $2,500.00 against the landlord.
I also award general damages of $500.00 to the tenant for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises, in particular for failure to seal the off gap around the hot water pipe which enabled mice to enter the premises. While the conclusions of Tony Walker of Walkers Pest Control Ltd are that during the inspection conducted on 5 September 2025, there is no rodent infestation, there is a hole in the floor of the cupboard with access to under the house where a water pipe ran through the floor which was not sealed. The pest controller’s report indicates that rodents can access the house through that unsealed gap in the pipe.
In addition to the above monetary orders, I also order the landlord to carry out these remedial work to the premises by 21 October 2025: a. Seal the off gap around the hot water pipe; b. Fix the rusty gutters and seal the holes in the gutters; c. Fix the leaking/rusty downpipes; and d. Fix the toilet louvre window to prevent draught.

Did the landlord issue a retaliatory notice?

On 27 March 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 28 June 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord says that he was not motivated by the tenant exercising their rights when he issued the tenant with the 90 days’ notice. The landlord wanted to undertake extensive renovations to the premises which requires the tenant to vacate the premises.
However, I find that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant’s exercise of their rights under the tenancy agreement when he issued the 90 days’ notice to the tenant.
The landlord was already aware of the conclusions of the June 2024 report by Habitat for Humanity which indicated that the premises is mouldy and does not comply with the Healthy Homes Standard on various aspects. The non- compliance has been confirmed by the recent Healthy Homes Assessment report dated 25 August 2025 from Healthy Homes NZ inspector John Peng.
Ahead of the date for mandatory compliance of HHS standards on 1 July 2025, the landlord issued the 90 day notice to the tenant. Most of the other more substantial works proposed by the landlord which required the tenant to vacate the premises, are not necessary for the purposes of compliance with HHS.
I find that despite the landlord’s stated reasons for giving of the notice, the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant exercising their rights under the RTA for the premises to be HHS compliant.
I accept the tenant’s submission that the landlord seems to using the major renovation works as pretext for not meeting their obligations under section 45(1A) RTA on the HHS.
I therefore find the landlord have committed an unlawful act in issuing a retaliatory notice.
Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so taking into account the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. For completeness giving of a retaliatory notice does not have to be intentional to award exemplary damages for a breach. See section 109(3) and (3A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Having regard to those factors, I find that an award of exemplary damages in the sum of $1,500.00 to be just and appropriate.
The tenant wish to stay and seek an order to invalidate the notice on grounds that it is retaliatory.
I accede to the tenant’s claim for an order declaring the notice as retaliatory, set aside the notice as retaliatory and award exemplary damages for the unlawful act committed by the landlord.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.
I reject the tenant’s claim that the landlord failed to comply with HHS insulation standards. I accept the building inspector’s report that the insulation on the premises either complies with or is otherwise exempt from the HHS insulation standard.
Because the tenant are substantially successful on their claims, I order suppression of the tenant’s names and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5241294 — Healthy homes at 50 Cosgrave Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5241294 — Healthy homes at 50 Cosgrave Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Did the landlord issue a retaliatory notice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Did the landlord issue a retaliatory notice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions