What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5247591 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 5247591?

Smoke Alarms: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Refund of rent: Unlawful residential…: $10,360.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5247591?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5247591?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12613583-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5247591 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 5247591?

Smoke Alarms: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Refund of rent: Unlawful residential…: $10,360.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5247591?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5247591?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12613583-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5247591 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5247591 — net $14,187.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of rent: Unlawful residential premises	$10,360.00	Refund of rent: Unlawful residential premises
Exemplary damages: Breach of healthy homes standards (draught stopping) and failure to provide smoke alarms	$3,000.00	13. Having regard to those factors I will award a refund of the rent paid during the tenancy ($12,950), less 20% to recognise the fact that [The tenant/s] obta…
Exemplary damages: Failure to pay bond to the Bond Centre	$500.00	Failure to pay bond to the Bond Centre
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	42. Having regard to the factors listed above (at paragraph 29) I will award exemplary damages of $500.00.
Balance of bond due to tenant	$300.00	Balance of bond due to tenant
Net award	$14,187.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$14,187.00

The Case Conference order dated 28 August 2025 sets out the background to the claim.

After the Case Conference hearing, [The tenant/s] submitted evidence in support of a claim that the premises were unlawful residential premises.

The hearing took place by phone on 22 October 2025. Ms Aird represented Mr Taylor at the hearing. Ms Aird confirmed that: a. she is employed by Mr Taylor; and b. part of her responsibilities was looking after [The tenant/s]’s tenancy; c. Mr Taylor is aware of [The tenant/s]’s claim, and she is authorised to represent him at the hearing. Unlawful residential premises

Unlawful residential premises are: 1 a. Premises that are used for occupation but that cannot be lawfully used for residential purposes; where: b. The unlawfulness was caused (or contributed to) by the landlords failure to: i. Take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to occupation; 2 or ii. Comply with all requirements in respect of buildings health and safety under any enactment. 3

The area that was rented to [The tenant/s] was one bay (on two levels) of a three bay shed. [The tenant/s] parked her car in the bottom level.

[The tenant/s] made enquiries with the [Council] about consents for the building. The [Council] provided her with a copy of a letter dated 11 January 2017. The letter pertains to a building consent for a “New garage/storage building” at this address. It is addressed to Mr Taylor. The letter states that the [Council] is unable to grant a Code of Compliance Certificate for this project because “the inspection regime has not been completed and the Council has not been able to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the work has been carried out in accordance with the Building Consent or the Building Code”.

[The tenant/s] said that the [Council] told her this was the most recent communication on the file.

Ms Aird said that she wasn’t aware of this situation, but she had no evidence to indicate that [The tenant/s]’s statement of the current situation is inaccurate.

The premises were unlawful residential premises throughout the tenancy. They were not able to be lawfully used for habitation. The only Building Consent 1 Section 78A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 36 RTA 3 Section 45(1)(c) RTA sought was for use as a garage / storage, not a dwelling. Even for that use, no Code of Compliance Certificate was issued.

The unlawfulness was caused by the landlord’s failure to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety under an enactment (being the Building Act 2004).

Where the Tribunal finds that the premises were unlawful residential premises, the Tribunal may order that the landlord pay to the tenant: a. All of the rent paid by the tenant during the period when the premises were unlawful (all of the tenancy in this instance); or b. An amount that is all of the rent paid by the tenant less “any amount that the Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to the special circumstances of the matter, including the nature of the premises, that it is fair to deduct”. 4

In this instance: a. Mr Taylor rented out the premises knowing that they could not be legally occupied. b. The premises are basic, but reasonably modern and serviceable. c. The property had some shortcomings, in particular the problem with draughts and temperature as discussed in more detail below. d. The property had no serviceable kitchen. It had a “kitchenette” which was a benchtop with some appliances. There was no kitchen sink, which is a legal requirement. 5

Having regard to those factors I will award a refund of the rent paid during the tenancy ($12,950), less 20% to recognise the fact that [The tenant/s] obtained some benefit from the accommodation. The amount of rent to be refunded is $10,360.00. Healthy homes and smoke alarms

Landlords must comply with the healthy homes standards. 6

The healthy homes compliance date for this tenancy was 21 September 2024. 7

[The tenant/s] said that the main problem with the property was that it was very cold during winter and hot in summer. 4 Section 78A(4) RTA 5 Regulation 7(2), Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 6 Section 45(1)(bb) RTA 7 120 days after the start of the tenancy.

She said that draughts came in through large gaps around the roller door. She said that she raised this problem early in her tenancy, but was told that nothing would be done about it.

[The tenant/s] said that nothing was done until she threatened to carry out some work herself, at which point the landlord arranged for draught stopping around the passage door at the top of the stairs. This did not stop the draughts in the bottom level, but it was effective enough in stopping them from blowing up in to the top level.

Ms Aird said that [The tenant/s] did not raise this issue until late 2024, and it was then addressed reasonably quickly.

[The tenant/s] arranged for a healthy homes assessment report in February 2025. I was provided with a copy of the report.

The report states that the premises comply with the healthy homes standards except for draught stopping. The report notes large gaps at the top and bottom corner of the roller door.

[The tenant/s] said that there were no smoke alarms in the premises at the start of the tenancy. She spoke about this with Ms Aird when she first viewed the property. Ms Aird said that she would have alarms fitted before the start, but this did not happen. After waiting for a while, [The tenant/s] purchased and fitted alarms herself.

Ms Aird recalled that there were no alarms at the first viewing. The premises had not been rented before this, only used by friends and family. She had a vague memory of Mr Taylor’s staff installing alarms, but she could not be certain.

[The tenant/s]’s oral submissions were more persuasive on this matter. Landlords have a positive duty to have complying smoke alarms in the premises at the start of every tenancy. There is no evidence of the landlord having purchased or installed any alarms at the start of [The tenant/s]’s tenancy.

It is proven that the landlord failed to meet the healthy homes standards (draught stopping) and failed to provide complying smoke alarms.

Failure to meet the healthy homes standards, and failing to have complying smoke alarms, is an unlawful act.

The District Court has held that the Tribunal may only make one ‘global’ award of exemplary damages for all breaches of section 45 RTA, not individual awards for each breach. 8

The maximum award of exemplary damages for an unlawful act in this section is $7,200.00. 8 MBIE v Hillis Shearing Ltd [2024] NZDC 27583

In considering an award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to: a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and d. The public interest.

In this instance: a. The landlord did not intend to breach the draught stopping standard, but the landlord intentionally rented the premises in a condition that was non- compliant. b. The failure to install smoke alarms was a genuine oversight, but the landlord was aware of the duty to have alarms and was aware that there were no alarms in the property. c. The draughts caused a substantial loss of amenity for [The tenant/s]. The living environment was unpleasant, particularly in winter. [The tenant/s] also said that the gaps allowed rodents and small birds into downstairs area. d. The lack of smoke alarms put [The tenant/s]’s personal safety as well as the landlord’s property at risk. Given that that the building was constructed as a garage / shed, it may not have the fire suppressing building materials that are common in homes.

Having regard to those factors I will award exemplary damages of $3,000.00. Bond

[The tenant/s] paid a bond of $700.00 at the start of the tenancy.

The bond was not paid to the Bond Centre.

At the date of hearing, $400 had been refunded to [The tenant/s].

Ms Aird said that she intended to refund the balance of $300 next week.

The tenant is entitled to a refund of the bond in full. The tenancy has ended, and no amount is owed to the landlord. I have included the balance of the bond in the order above.

The application was amended to include exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond.

[The tenant/s] did not speak to this part of her claim at the hearing on 22 October, but she has not withdrawn this part of her claim.

It is an unlawful act if a landlord does not pay the bond to the Bond Centre within 23 working days of receipt. Exemplary damages of up to $1500 apply.

Ms Aird did not deny that the bond was not paid to the Bond Centre, and she did not make any arguments in mitigation.

It is a mitigating factor that the bond was held safely by the landlord. I also note that this is the first time that Mr Taylor has rented out this particular property, although I understand that he rents other ‘units’ at this address.

Having regard to the factors listed above (at paragraph 29) I will award exemplary damages of $500.00. Filing fee, name suppression

The tenant has been successful in this application, and I must also award the tenant the filing fee of $27.00. 9

The tenant sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted on the basis that the tenant was substantially successful in the proceedings. 10

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5247591 — net $14,187.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of rent: Unlawful residential premises	$10,360.00	Refund of rent: Unlawful residential premises
Exemplary damages: Breach of healthy homes standards (draught stopping) and failure to provide smoke alarms	$3,000.00	13. Having regard to those factors I will award a refund of the rent paid during the tenancy ($12,950), less 20% to recognise the fact that [The tenant/s] obta…
Exemplary damages: Failure to pay bond to the Bond Centre	$500.00	Failure to pay bond to the Bond Centre
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	42. Having regard to the factors listed above (at paragraph 29) I will award exemplary damages of $500.00.
Balance of bond due to tenant	$300.00	Balance of bond due to tenant
Net award	$14,187.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$14,187.00