What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5248152?

The tribunal order states: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Jamie And Andrea Saker must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5248152?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5248152?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5248152?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11971328-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5248152?

The tribunal order states: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Jamie And Andrea Saker must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5248152?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5248152?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5248152?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11971328-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Robley Crescent, Glendowie, Auckland 1071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5248152 — State of repair

Order

Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Jamie And Andrea Saker must pay Lawrence Buxton and Christine Druce $9,709.82 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 7 May 2025.
The tenant applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages, refund of the filing fee and refund of the bond.
The landlord made a cross application, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo 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 or 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claimed the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy nor did they leave it in a similar condition to the condition they received it in. Specifically, the landlord indicated that the oven was left in an unclean state.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy 1 : The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the start of the tenancy 2 :The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated: “‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied, or constitute a health hazard (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.”
Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”.
The evidence the landlord produced showed the premise was left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenants also produced photographs that supported their contention that they had spent hours cleaning the oven and the premise before they vacated it. The tenants’ photographs of the oven disproved that the tenants had not left it reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for $736.00 in cleaning costs is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord has proven the tenants left two light bulbs that needed to be replaced. The amount ordered is proven. 1 Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd Christchurch TT 12/00532/CH, 24 August 2012. 2 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord says the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to the lounge room wall; b. Balcony door damage; c. Carpet damage in downstairs living room under a book shelf and in the back bedroom under a plastic mat.
The landlord says this damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant does not accept liability for the damage. Lounge room wall
On 7 November 2024, the property manager emailed the tenant informing the tenant what claims the landlord wanted to make against the bond as a result of the exit inspection.
The exit inspection photographs of the lounge room 17, 20, 21, 22 show damage to the lounge wall that are more than fair wear and tear.
The tenants claim the property manager did not show these marks to them during the exit inspection and claims they are not responsible for this damage.
I am satisfied that this damage was not present at the beginning of the tenancy and was present at the end of the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. I am also satisfied that this damage was the result of the careless acts or omissions of the tenants, their children or their pets.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Balcony door
I am not satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to prove the damage to the balcony door was not present at the beginning of the tenancy as the photographs do not show it clearly. The exit inspection photographs do show some dog scratches on the door and the tenants did have a dog. However, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the damage occurred during the tenancy or that the damage was because of intentional or careless acts or omissions by themselves, their children or their pet. The claim for $700.00 for the repair of the door damage is dismissed. Insurance excess for replacement of carpet
The landlord has claimed insurance excess of $2,800.00 for the replacement of the carpet in the downstairs living room and back bedroom from damage it claims resulted from the tenants careless acts or omissions.
The first area of carpet that was damaged was in the downstairs living room, under a bookshelf. The second area of carpet that was damaged was in the back bedroom, under a plastic mat the tenants had put in place to stop an office chair creating more wear the already aging carpet.
The landlord says the insurance assessor indicated that these stains were from dog vomit and confirmed that one not noticed until end of tenancy as it was under a bookshelf that had been there for the duration of the tenancy and one that had been under plastic mat so was not picked up until the exit inspection. It is difficult to understand how a dog would have been able to vomit in these two places during the tenancy.
The exit inspection report records “the tenant has tried to clean an area of the carpet where mould has been present, again they’ve done their best, but taken some of the fibres out of the carpet but the mould has now gone. Apart from that patch the carpet is in good condition”. There is a photograph of this area.
The tenants confirmed they had treated the mould with the protectorant “MOULD STOP Surface Cleaner and Protectant Spray 750ml” but the carpet was so old that where the mould treatment was used it the carpet disintegrated.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the carpet was at least 8 years old. IR265 depreciation rates estimate the life span of carpet to be 8 years with a depreciation rate of around 13% per annum.
I am satisfied that the marks complained of were not from dog vomit, were more likely than not to be from mould that build up under these covers during the tenancy as there is an indication that the house was damp at times in the downstairs area. In addition, I find that the carpet is of an age where it is due for replacement according to the Inland Revenue depreciation rates. It would not be equitable for the tenants to pay for replacing old carpet with brand new carpet that was due for replacement.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for the two $1,400.00 insurance excesses for replacing the carpet in these two rooms for insufficient evidence to prove these claims on the balance of probabilities.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord breach its section 45(1) of the RTA obligations?

Lawrence Buxton and Christine Druce claim the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of RTA
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 3
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 and/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 4 . 3 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 4 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 5 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 6 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 7 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Breaching any of these s45(1) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants.

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

The tenants say the landlord has failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. House alarm
The tenants first raised the fact the house alarm did not function on 12 December 2022. It is noted in the entry inspection report. In addition, Cynthia said she would fix the house alarm in an email to the tenant, dated 23 January 2023.
An electrician came to the premise on 24 January 2023, but informed the tenants that he was there to fix the lights and not the house alarm.
By 30 May 2023, the tenants had informed the landlord that this repair was not a priority for them and that they would agree to the agents not repairing the alarm so that the property managers could focus on more pressing repair and maintenance issues.
I find the tenants should have received a rent rebate for the period they have had the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience of not having use of the house alarm that they expected to be able to use during their tenancy to help keep them and their belongings secure. I award the tenants a rent rebate of $30.00 per week for the period 12 December 2022 to 30 May 2023 (24 weeks and 1 day). $30.00 x 24 weeks and 1 day is $724.29. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 6 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
I also find that this breach was an intentional breach and as such an award of exemplary damage appropriate. I will consider the quantum of exemplary damages to be ordered when I consider all of the landlord’s intentional s45(1) of the RTA breaches in the exemplary damages section of the order below. Digital front door lock
The faulty lock on the front door was first reported to the landlord on the 12th of December 2022 and is noted in the entry inspection report. The tenant has produced photographic and video evidence of this ongoing issue and evidence that the lock was not replaced until 20 September 2023.
The tenants claim that they were forced to use the garage or side doors to access the house for 40 weeks and 2 days because the lock continued to only work intermittently until it was replaced.
On 6 March 2023, the tenant sent the landlord an email complaining that the lock was still not working and then connected the landlord again 9 May 2023 to confirm the front door lock was faulty and the pin pad was not working. The tenants produced a video of the issue to the landlord, and it agreed the lock had to be fixed. This video was produced for the Tribunal to review.
The tenants sent a follow up email on 19 May 2023 that says the front door lock is still randomly blocking their access to the property.
An invoice, dated 29 May 2023, produced by the landlord shows it sent a locksmith out to assess the issue and remedy it on 24 May 2023. The locksmiths invoice shows they replaced the batteries and recorded that the lock was “currently working ok”. The tenant says he was replacing the batteries every two weeks because the digital pad had a phantom touching issue that used up all the battery power. His video evidence shows halfway through keying in the numbers, the lock would do phantom movements without being pressed and them would not open as the code it typed itself was incorrect. The tenants informed the locksmith of this intermittent issue and confirmed the lock needed to be replaced. The locksmith said he had not been given instructions to replace it, so he stripped it down and cleaned it and said to see how it went and if was still not working consistently they would replace it.
On 5 June 2023 the tenant emailed Daniel to confirm the lock continued to glitch and that the lock had continued to be faulty from the day after the locksmith came. The tenants say they tried to be understanding as they are aware these issues can take time to fix.
An email from the tenants dated 1 November 2023 confirms the lock is now working after it was replaced on 20 September 2023.
I find the tenants should have received a rent rebate for the period they have had the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience of not having use of the digital door lock and having to access the premise through the garage or side doors. They had reasonably expected to be able to consistently use the digital front door lock to enter the premise during their tenancy and the intermittent nature with which it operated was a cause of great distress and inconvenience to the tenants and their children. I award the tenants a rent rebate of $50.00 per week for the period 12 December 2022 to 20 September 2023 (40 weeks and 2 days). $50.00 x 40 weeks and 2 days is $2,014.28.
I also find that the landlord was slow to have the issue investigated and remediated and that when it did it did not authorise the replacement of the digital locking system when the tenants evidence showed the lock was faulty and that batteries and cleaning were not going to adequately address the issue. The landlord took from 12 December 2022 to 24 May 2023 (over 5 months) to have the issue investigated. For these reasons I find that this breach was an intentional breach for which an award of exemplary damages in appropriate. I will consider the quantum of exemplary damages to be ordered when I consider all the landlord’s intentional s45(1) of the RTA breaches in the exemplary damages section of the order below. Seal on oven door
The tenants have produced evidence that proves the male tenant raised the issue of the faulty external seal on the oven door on 1 November 2023. The 31 January 2024 inspection report records this issue.
The landlord confirmed that on 27 March 2024 a work order was raised but there was a delay in a contractor coming out to investigate the issue.
The landlord has produced evidence that from 24 June 2024 the property manager chased up contractor to 14 August 2024. On 19 July 2024 the contractor asked the property manager for details of make and model of oven and pictures of it and the faulty seal. On 7 August 2024 the contractor continued to follow up about make and model of the oven and on 14 August 2024 confirmed it had ordered the part. The seal was finally replaced on 27 August 2024 when it has been raised on 1 November 2023.
The tenants says that they were not kept informed of the reasons for the lengthy delay in replacing this seal and that the property manager kept reporting it in the inspection reports but provided no information on what the property manager was doing to address the issue.
The tenants say the oven still worked but lost a lot of heat and that led to poor cooking outcomes for some food products and an increase in power to operate the oven.
I find the tenants should have received a rent rebate for the period they have had the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience of not having full use of an oven that should have been able to hold a consistent temperature and not being able to cook food items that required a consistent temperature. The tenants should have been able to reasonably expect to be able to use the oven to bake, heat and cook any food they chose during their tenancy and the way in which the oven lost heat was a cause of stress and inconvenience. I award the tenants a rent rebate of $30.00 per week for the period 1 November 2023 to 27 August 2024 (42 weeks and 6 days). $30.00 x 42 weeks and 6 days is $1,285.74.
.I also find that the landlord was slow to have the issue investigated and remediated from 1 November 2023 to 27 March 2024 but accept that the remainder of the delay in remedying the issue was not intentional but caused by the contractor it used to procure the new seal and fit it. For these reasons I find that only a portion of this breach was an intentional breach for which an award of exemplary damages in appropriate. I will consider the quantum of exemplary damages to be ordered when I consider all the landlord’s intentional s45(1) of the RTA breaches in the exemplary damages section of the order below. Fridge freezer
The fridge freezer came with the premise and the use of this was part of the amenity the tenants expected to receive for the $1,160.00 weekly rent they were paying for this Glendowie premise.
The tenants first reported an issue with the fridge freezer to the landlord by email on 10 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged the email on 11 March 2024.
A contractor came to investigate the issue on 19 March 2024 and told the landlord it was not economical to repair it and recommended it be replaced.
The property manager advised the tenants he was getting quotes on 21 March 2024 and on 26 March 2024 that the owner had suggested the tenants may like to purchase their own fridge freezer. The tenants confirmed they did not want to purchase a fridge freezer, that they would be away from 29 March 2024 to 22 April 2024, and they didn’t want the new appliance to be delivered until after that date.
The fridge was replaced on 26 April 2024, 4 days after the tenants returned to the premise expecting the new fridge freezer to be delivered on 22 April 2024 or the day after.
The tenants say that there was a small bar fridge they relied on during this period, but they had no freezer or enough fridge space for a family of four with two young children. The tenants say they considered that some more urgency should have been applied to this issue.
The landlord accepts there was a delay caused by the owner’s wanting to get their own quote and shop around before giving permission for an appliance to be ordered but says the compensation should be up to the date the tenants went on holiday, being 29 March 2024.
The tenants say they were happy for the property manager to enter the house and get the measurements for the new appliance and had the property management company confirmed they would be at the house to supervise the installation of the new appliance while they were on leave, they would have been happy for the fridge freezer to be installed while they were away. The tenants say Barfoot’s did not supervise any contractors it sent and so they were reluctant to have the delivery persons in the premise unsupervised. I accept this explanation and am satisfied the property manager could have supervised the installation of the fridge freezer in the two weeks the tenants were away so that it would be there on their return.
I find the tenants should have received a rent rebate for the period they have had the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience of not having use of the fridge freezer, losing all their frozen food and having to do multiple small shops for their family as they had little capacity to refrigerate food. I award the tenants a rent rebate of $15.00 per week for the period 10 March 2024 to 26 April 2024 (6 weeks and 5 days). The lower rent rebate quantum recognises the part the tenants played in some of the delay while they were on leave for 2 weeks. $15.00 x 6 weeks and 5 days is $100.70.
I do not find the breach to be intentional and as such an award of exemplary damages not to be warranted. Back fence
The tenants say there were gaps in the back fence that were never repaired, and they were forced to use ad-hock measures to block the holes to prevent their dogs escaping. They say this issue was never remedied during the tenancy.
The 27 April 2023 inspection report records that the fence behind the shed has become detached and it is mentioned again in the cover comments in a spreadsheet the tenant provided to the landlord of all the repair and maintenance issues on 9 May 2023. On 9 May 2023, the property manager acknowledges the repair and maintenance issues and says he will send it to the owners for approval to address. The back fence is one of the items that is listed as in need of attention.
On 9 and 16 may 2023, the tenants sent photographs of the broken fence and requested it be fixed. These photographs show the large gaps in the back fence on right corner of garden. These photographs show the tenants took remedial interim action to secure the property and their dog by taking steps to block off the gaps so their husky did not escape and go visiting the neighbours.
The landlord accepts this was an issue that was reported on 27 April 2023 and that it has no record of this issue being addressed. Further, the landlord stated that this issue got overlooked as the male tenant had done his own temporary fix and “it may have been bumped down the list” while the landlord “addressed more important things”.
I find the tenants should have received a rent rebate for the period they have had the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience of not having use of the yard to house their dog securely and to secure the premise form external intruders when they had reasonably expected to be able to during their tenancy. I award the tenants a rent rebate of $30.00 per week for the period 27 April 2023 to 25 October 2024 (78 weeks and 1 day). $30.00 x 78 weeks and 1 day is $2,344.29.
I also find that this breach was an intentional breach and as such an award of exemplary damage appropriate. I will consider the quantum of exemplary damages to be ordered when I consider all the landlord’s intentional s45(1) of the RTA breaches in the exemplary damages section of the order below. Healthy Homes Standards
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its 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 heating and ventilation standards.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provided for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the HHS. A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
Tenancies that commenced after 1 July 2019 and before 1 July 2021 are not required to meet all the healthy homes standard until 1 July 2025, but must comply with the Smoke Alarms and Insulation Regulations set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
The tenancy commenced on 12 December 2022, therefore the premise had to be fully healthy homes compliant within 120 days, being 11 April 2023 and the premise having to comply with the insulation standard and smoke alarm regulations immediately.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
In any event, over the course of the tenancy the tenant says the tenancy has not complied with the heating, ventilation, draught stopping, insulation and moisture ingress and drainage standards and that this is a breach of section 45(1)(bb) and an unlawful act under 45(1A) of the RTA.
The tenants seek exemplary damages 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 committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person 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. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award. Heating standard
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the main living room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The tenants claim a breach of the heating standard and seek an order that for that purpose.
The parties confirmed that there was a heat pump in the main lounge and the lounge downstairs for the duration of the tenancy and that, although there were no heating calculations provided to the tenants at the start of the tenancy, there had been a healthy homes assessment completed on 14 April 2025 that confirmed the landlord’s original heating assessment (that recorded the heating requirement of the main lounge as being 6.1kW and the heat pump being 8kW ) as being correct.
The third party that conducted the April 2025 assessment confirmed that it had used the heating capacity calculator and that the 8kW heat pump in upstairs lounge and 4.8kW is in downstairs lounge was adequate to meet the heating standard. Further, it indicated that the 45 sqm upstairs (69 % of total area) has a 5.9 kW heating requirement (not the original 6.1kW).
I am satisfied the landlord met the heating standard by the statutory compliance date and I do not consider there is any evidence to suggest the landlord was in breach of the heating standard at any time during the tenancy.
I dismiss the tenants claim for exemplary damages for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities and the landlord successfully disproving the claim. Ventilation standard
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The tenants say the downstairs bathroom extractor fan was missing. In response the landlord stated that the downstairs bathroom has an exemption as it has had a contractor investigate installation of an extractor fan and been informed the room can’t be externally vented as there is a double brick wall that could not be cut through. In addition, an electrician’s report says that is not practical to install an extractor fan in the window space. The contractor reported that there is a window in that bathroom that can be opened as an alternative ventilation source.
The tenants disagree and say an electrician is not a licensed building practitioner or a ventilation installer and that the landlord sought advice from the wrong professionals and an electrician cannot make statements on structural issues. The male tenant is a qualified engineer.
The tenant also pointed out that the owner’s heathy homes statement, sent on 9 March 2023, records there being a fan in the downstairs bathroom when that this is incorrect. The tenants say this begs the question about how accurate the rest of the owner’s self-assessment was. The property manager stated that when the owner was asked about this error, she was told the owner had not been to the property for a while and she could not recall what was there or not. The tenants had a record of the property manager, Daniel accepting that the owners document was incorrect on 9 May 2023 and that he would arrange to get an extractor fan to ensure that there was full compliance.
The tenants say the fan in the kitchen was so ineffective and they had to open a window. And that the landlord sent a contractor in July 2023 to investigate why the fan was not extracting as it should, and the contractor stated that it could not see anything wrong with the fan. The landlord has no other record of anything done with this fan after this date.
The tenant has an email that proves on 1 November 2023 that the kitchen fan still needed attention and that they had not heard anything further regarding the missing extractor fan in the downstairs bathroom and enquired when the landlord was going to seek a second opinion as to how to resolve these issues.
On 13 August 2023, a contractor from Encore looked at the house and found no healthy homes issues at all, although they quoted on installing a moisture barrier and underfloor insulation. This quote suggests that the premise did not meet all of the healthy homes standards.
The landlord had another contractor from SOLVD conduct a healthy homes assessment 26 August 2023. This contractor said there was some draught stopping issues, that the landlord had them address and SOLVD also provided a quote to top up the underfloor insulation and instal a ground moisture barrier. The tenants say they were not aware of any of these communications or assessments.
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) RTA.
I find that the kitchen extractor fan was not compliant during the tenancy but accept the downstairs bathroom would qualify for an exemption. I am satisfied that the landlord intentionally took no steps to ensure the kitchen extractor fan was complaint and as such an award of exemplary damage is warranted because: a. I consider that decisions made by the landlord around what they would or would not do in terms of the HHS compliance, were intentional. b. The effect for the tenants was that their dwelling was colder and damper than it needed to be as it was not ventilated adequately. c. The strong interest for tenants and the public generally, is that tenancies be warm and dry, and that is achieved by compliance with the HHS. d. In the circumstances I consider it would be just to make an order of exemplary damages. Insulation Standard
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
The healthy homes assessment reports and quotes the landlord commissioned on 13 August 2023 and 26 August 2023 proves the landlord was aware that the premise did not meet the underfloor insulation standard, and it did nothing to address this issue until 28 November 2023.
There was a disagreement between the tenants and the landlord about whether the part of the ceiling space in the master bedroom and entrance hallway, that was an extension to the original property and has a skillion ceiling, required insulation as the landlord had been told there was insufficient roof space to install insulation. As such, the landlord says it provided a free-standing heater for extra warmth in the master bedroom. The male tenant asserts that this area of the roof could be insulated. I was not provided with any specialist building report to confirm one way or the other.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act, it knew about the requirement to meet the insulation standard when the tenancy commenced and intentionally took no steps to ensure compliance with the underfloor insulation standard at the commencement of the tenancy and also took no steps to remedy the breach until 28 November 2023.
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) RTA.
I am satisfied that the landlord’s breach was intentional and that an award of exemplary damages is warranted. Because: a. I consider that decisions made by the landlord around what they would or would not do in terms of the HHS compliance, were intentional. b. The effect for the tenants was that their dwelling was colder than it needed to be as it was not insulated adequately. c. The strong interest for tenants and the public generally, is that tenancies be warm and dry, and that is achieved by compliance with the HHS. d. In the circumstances I consider it would be just to make an order of exemplary damages. Draught stopping standard
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
The draught stopping standard requires landlords make sure the property doesn’t have unreasonable gaps or holes in walls, ceilings, windows, skylights, floors and doors which cause noticeable draughts. All unused open fireplaces must be closed off or their chimneys must be blocked to prevent draughts.
The tenants had looked at HHS report they sent on 9 March 2023 and shared their comparisons with the landlord on 9 May 2023. The male tenant had documented list of things that were wrong with the property, many of which were healthy homes issues, and some were maintenance issues.
The tenant has produced photographic and video evidence that: a. There was a 4mm gap in front door; b. All the windows needed draught stopping tape to reduce draughts; c. The balcony/back deck door had gaps that let draughts in and the draught stopping tape had been installed incorrectly and fell off; d. The garage door had no draught proofing around frame and there was an interconnected door from the garage to the house that let draughts come through the garage into the house; and e. The bedroom French door had draught stopping strips that were worn or not there and thereby were allowing draughts into the room.
The landlord said that it was not under the impression that there was an issue with the draught stopping until the tenant first raised it 9 May 2023. The landlord also stated that on 13 August 2023, a contractor from Encore looked at the house and found no issues. He said the draught stopping was compliant. However, it accepts that the tenants evidence proved there was an issue, that there was no excuse for the delay in addressing these draught issues, and they recognise this should have been dealt with earlier.
The SOLVD contractor on 26 August 2023, said there were draught stopping issues and the landlord confirmed these issues had not been addressed by 1 November 2023. The tenant also produced an email that lists the extensive draught stopping issues that are still to be resolved.
The landlord confirmed the draught stopping was done by 28 November 2023 and produced an invoice dated 30 November 2023 for works completed. The tenants pointed out that the invoice proves the draught stopping around the windows were not done.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act, it knew about the requirement to meet the draught stopping standard by 11 April 2023 and took no steps to remedy the breach until 28 November 2023.
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) RTA.
I am satisfied that the landlord’s breach was intentional and that an award of exemplary damages is warranted. Because: a. I consider that decisions made by the landlord around what they would or would not do in terms of the HHS compliance, were intentional. b. The effect for the tenants was that their dwelling was colder than it needed to be as it was not insulated adequately. c. The strong interest for tenants and the public generally, is that tenancies be warm and dry, and that is achieved by compliance with the HHS. d. In the circumstances I consider it would be just to make an order of exemplary damages. Moisture ingress and drainage standard
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require 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 tenant raised this issue with the landlord on 6 March 2023 and again in an email to the landlord on 9 May 2023 that records the ground moisture barrier is incomplete and requires attention.
On 1 November 2023, the tenant again emails the landlord and confirms the moisture barrier in the small subfloor is only half of the area done, and this area hasn't been fully covered or fixed down, just laid loosely over the top, and is non-compliant.
A ground moisture barrier was installed on 28 November 2023. The tenant says it is still not complaint as it was not installed to NZ Standards and another section is not installed at all.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act, it knew about the requirement to meet the moisture ingress and drainage standard by 11 April 2023 and took no steps to remedy the breach until 28 November 2023.
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) RTA.
I am satisfied that the landlord’s breach was intentional and that an award of exemplary damages is warranted. Because: a. I consider that decisions made by the landlord around what they would or would not do in terms of the HHS compliance, were intentional. b. The effect for the tenants was that their dwelling was colder than it needed to be as it was not protected from ground moisture adequately. c. The strong interest for tenants and the public generally, is that tenancies be warm and dry, and that is achieved by compliance with the HHS. d. In the circumstances I consider it would be just to make an order of exemplary damages.
.Because I am making more than one order of exemplary damages for all breaches of section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the RTA, I will consider the quantum to be ordered for all those breaches below. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed four intentional breaches of s45(1)(b) of the RTA, and four of s45(1)(bb). These breaches were prolonged and resulted in the tenants living in cold and damp conditions and experienced considerable periods of stress, inconvenience and loss of the amenities they were paying rent to enjoy. The landlord did not offer any rent relief for these breaches during the tenancy.
I find the landlord has committed eight unlawful acts intentionally and caused the tenants stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity.
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.
I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenants ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $2,400.00 exemplary damages to the tenant, being a third of the maximum penalty available. Did the landlord provide the tenants with the statutorily required signed healthy homes compliance statement, detailed information on the level of compliance of the premise with the healthy homes standards, an insulation statement and insurance information in the tenancy agreement?
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under sections 13A(1CA), 13A(1A) and 13A(2) of the RTA.
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA), 13A(1A) and/or s13A(2) obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00 for all breaches. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Signed healthy homes compliance statement
Under section 13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
The landlord does not dispute having a signed healthy homes compliance statement in the tenancy agreement. Therefore, the tenant’s claim is upheld. The landlord did not have any other explanation for this breach other than it must have been an oversight. I find this breach unlawful and intentional. Insulation statement
The tenants claim the landlord has not included insulation details in the tenancy agreement.
A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed. See section 13A(1A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord does not dispute having an insulation statement in the tenancy agreement. Therefore, the tenant’s claim is upheld. The landlord did not have any other explanation for this breach other than it must have been an oversight. I find this breach unlawful and intentional. Insurance information
Section 13A(2) of the RTA states “the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement the following information about insurance of the premises: a. If the premises are not insured, a statement that they are not insured; and b. If the premises are insured, a statement: c. setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and d. informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request (except that the statement need not inform the tenant of this if the landlord has already provided to the tenant a copy of the policy in accordance with section 45(2B) or66J(5))”.
The tenant’s tenancy agreement did not contain any of this information.
The landlord accepted she did not provide this information but gave no justifiable reason for failing to do so.
I find the landlord has intentionally committed an unlawful act. Exemplary damages for failure to provide the statutorily required information in the tenancy agreement.
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.
I am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements, prescribed by sections 13A(1A), 13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, and the statutorily required insurance information s13A(2) of the RTA, and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $750.00 of exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available), because: a. The owner has engaged an experienced property management company that should have reasonably known it had to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and Smoke Alarm Regulations and intentionally did not; b. The impact on the tenants of the landlord not providing this information is that they took on the tenancy for a premise not knowing if it complied with the healthy homes standards and if the landlord had tenant insurance to offset the cost of any damage to the property for which the tenants may be liable. The tenants may not have taken the tenancy if they had known the premise did not fully comply with the healthy homes’ standards, but was denied that opportunity; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide signed proof to the tenants that the rental premises meet all the healthy homes standards and if the landlord has tenant insurance to reduce the tenants liability for potential damages to the property; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide signed healthy homes standards statements, and statutorily required healthy homes and insurance information in compliance with the clear requirements set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and the smoke alarm regulations.

OTHER ORDERS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in its proceedings. The landlord has breached several of its obligations to the tenants, some intentionally that have attracted exemplary damage penalties. As such, I consider publication is in the public interest and justified because of the landlord’s conduct and the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s application for non-publication is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5248152 — State of repair at 24 Robley Crescent, Glendowie, Auckland 1071

Tenancy Tribunal case 5248152 — State of repair at 24 Robley Crescent, Glendowie, Auckland 1071

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

OTHER ORDERS

Property management

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

OTHER ORDERS

Property management