What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5251822 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must immediately pay the bond of $1800 to the Bond Centre.

How much money was awarded in case 5251822?

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 5251822?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5251822?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12271209-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5251822 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must immediately pay the bond of $1800 to the Bond Centre.

How much money was awarded in case 5251822?

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 5251822?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5251822?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12271209-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 25 Sefton Street, Seaview, Timaru 7910 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5251822 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat 1, 25 Sefton Street, Seaview, Timaru 7910 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5251822 — Healthy homes | TenantCheck

Order

The landlord must immediately pay the bond of $1800 to the Bond Centre.
The landlord is to pay the tenant the sum of $3448.57 as set out in the table below: itemIn favour of tenantIn favour of landlord Rent owing as at 4.7.25$4371.43 Exemplary damages for failure to lodge bond and provide written receipt $1500 Exemplary damages for breach of HHS $4320 Compensation by way of failure of landlord to comply with s 45 of the

RTA

$2000 Total$7820$4371.43

Total payable by landlord to tenant $3448.57

The landlord must perform the following work orders pursuant to s 78(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA): a. Remedy the breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards referred to in paragraphs 70 to 95 of this decision within a reasonable time of the date of this decision. b. Immediately fix the toilet which is loose and emitting a sewerage smell. c. Immediately fill in all holes in the interior floor and all other gaps at the property that are letting in cold air and draughts. d. Immediately repair all rotting weatherboards in the deck. e. Produce a Healthy Homes report at the completion of this work to confirm the property is Healthy Homes compliant.
Until the work identified at 3 (a) to 3 (d) above is completed, the rent is to abate (reduce) by $100 per week, from 4 July 2025.
I direct that a copy of this decision be sent to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy commenced on 26 August 2024 and is ongoing. The tenant lives in the premises with his 12 year old son. The rent is $450 per week.
The premises is one of several premises contained in the one building.
The landlord is seeking an order for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that rent has been owing for more than 21 days. Ms Donna Miers, who appeared for the landlord, said the rent owing as at the date of the hearing (4 July 2025) was $5271.43. 1
The tenant says he has a valid cross application for breach of Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) by the landlord, failure to lodge the bond within the required 1 I note that only in her reply to [The tenant/s] opposition submissions, Ms Miers alluded to three alleged instances of antisocial behaviour as grounds for termination. She had not however advanced any submission in that regard in her opening submissions. Further, I gather that the alleged instances all related to difficulties between [The tenant/s] and a contractor, the narrative of which is disputed. The contractor did not give any evidence at the hearing. time frame and failure to give him any receipt. He seeks exemplary damages of $18,000. 2 He is also asking for compensation for stress and for his power bills, which have jumped by around $200 per week because he is having to keep the dehumidifier on all the time.
He also sought reimbursement of expenses and payment for various work he did on the premises, but I explained to him during the hearing that this was not within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
He claimed that there had been discrimination but advanced no submissions on this aspect and withdrew it. I gather that the scope of that submission was that the landlord had been defaming him by speaking negatively of him to others. Events leading to the hearing on 1 May 2025
The landlord applied for termination on 30 March 2025 on the grounds of rent arrears then owing of $3,150.
This matter first came before me on 1 May 2025. My order records that the tenant had his own claim for breach of HHS. I recorded that the tenant was claiming: a. There is no insulation in the property b. There are gaps in the walls c. There is no extractor fan in the kitchen and the bathroom d. The windows are leaking e. A bathroom window does not open f. There is black mould in the home g. The landlord failed to lodge the bond at the Bond Centre
The tenant claims that the landlord essentially takes advantage of vulnerable tenants who struggle to find tenancies because of their records.
The landlord denied all claims. She considers that she helps people obtain accommodation where they may not otherwise be able to do so.
At the first hearing I made orders for the tenant to reinstate the weekly rent payments, with the first payment to start on 8 May. I note that rent record provided by the landlord shows that two payments of $450 were paid on 7 and 8 May. So rent was reinstated. 2 I note that the tenant had alluded in his material to breaches by the landlord of her other obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), listing off a large number of provisions of the RTA to me at one point during the hearing, without giving any further details. The scope of the submissions he made were advanced on the basis of breach of HHS, breach of s 45 of the RTA and failure to lodge the bond. I explained to both parties during the hearing that it was their obligation to expand on their submissions and point me to any relevant evidence they relied on rather than simply alleging generic breaches of provisions of the RTA without more.
I then set all of the applications down for further hearing before me, giving the tenant time to file his own application and supporting evidence. Application for rehearing
For completion purposes, I mention that the landlord submitted an application for rehearing of my order of 1 May 2025, out of time. The landlord withdrew that application at the commencement of the hearing on 4 July. The landlord maintains however that I was wrong to have not terminated at the first hearing, given the rent was owing for more than 21 days. She claims that Tenancy Services had told her termination was required. I return to this issue below, as this submission was forcefully advanced by the landlord several times during the hearing. Issues and evidence
As noted above, I heard directly from the landlord’s representative, Ms Miers, at the hearing. I heard evidence from the tenant as well as another resident at the premises.
The matter heard over a half day hearing. The parties were given ample opportunity to make submissions before the hearing concluded. 3
The issues before me are: a. How much rent does the tenant owe the tenant? b. Did the landlord send the bond to the Bond Centre and provide the tenant with a receipt for the bond? c. Has the landlord breached the HHS? d. Is the landlord in breach of s 45 of the RTA? Burden of proof
Before I go on to consider the issues in this case, I begin by noting that in regard to the burden of proof, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. They must establish that what they are claiming is more probable than not.
Independent witnesses, corroborating documents. reports and photographs can be an important part of discharging this burden. 3 The landlord did not seek any adjournment or request any further time to make additional submissions, at one point saying that the matter needed to be brought to a conclusion now. Her primary submission in response to the tenant’s application is that she has been unable to get access to the property to conduct her own healthy homes report.
As I explained to both parties at the hearing, it is for them to collect the relevant evidence they rely on make submissions on it at the hearing itself. The Tribunal does not work out a party’s case for them. Corroborating information can be an important part of proving a claim but ultimately it is over to the parties as to what evidence they decide to bring and call at the hearing. It is not for the Tribunal to extract or locate the evidence, or to hunt down and call witnesses itself.
Ultimately it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, in practical terms this means that: 4 ...[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.

What is owing for rent?

I deal first with the question of rent.
The landlord says the rent now owing is $5271.43 as at 4 July 2025. The landlord provided a rent summary proving that this was the amount owing.
The tenant claims that an additional amount of $900 has been paid by the Ministry of Social Development direct to the landlord. The tenant has supplied a letter from the Ministry of Social Development recording this payment. The letter is dated 17 September 2024 and records the terms of a rent arrears grant, with the supplier being the landlord and the amount being $900.
It records that payment to the landlord was by way of direct credit and that [The tenant/s] is to pay back the amount advanced by way of two dollars per week. The landlord’s response to this letter was she had not received the payment.
I am satisfied that [The tenant/s] has proven on the balance of probabilities that this additional payment was made to the landlord. I consider it more probable than not that a payment of $900 has been made by MSD which has not been accounted for.
Therefore, the total rent owing, subject to what I say below, is $4,371.43 as at 4 July 2024.
The landlord’s second claim is for the cost of replacing 13 windows which have been smashed. She claims that the tenant did this. During the hearing she said she was contacted by another tenant at the premises to say it was the tenant who smashed the windows. That tenant gave evidence at the hearing that he said no 4 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy DC Waitakere 233/02, 12 April 2002, at [7]. such thing and simply said it looked like rocks had been thrown up from the bottom of the property.
The tenant denies causing any damage to the property by smashing windows.
I find that the evidence supported by the landlord falls well short of establishing that the windows were smashed by the tenant. As this allegation is akin to what would be regarded as a criminal act, more cogent evidence is required but in any event there is simply nothing at all that corroborates the landlord’s claim that the tenant cause this damage and I therefore dismiss it. I note further that no cost has actually been incurred in remedying this damage. All I have from the landlord is a quote for the repairs. Set off
As I explained and reiterated to the landlord several times during the hearing, the fact that rent is owing is not the end of the matter.
It is well established that the Tenancy Tribunal applies equitable principles of law, such as set off. An equitable set offers a defence to a claim for rent arising from the tenancy agreement, directly from the landlord tenant relationship or with a sufficiently close connection to the tenancy agreement. 5 A tenancy should not be terminated if a set off by the tenant reduces rent arrears to less than 21 days. 6
What this means is I cannot merely consider the landlord’s claim in a vacuum, despite the fact the landlord urged me to essentially do so. I must also consider whether any set-off arises and therefore whether there is any validity to the tenant’s application.
I now proceed to consider the tenant’s application. Failure to lodge the bond
The tenant claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time frame, nor provided a receipt for the bond.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 5 Grant v NZMC Ltd [1989 ] 1 NZLR 8 (CA) at 12 – 13 6 Lal v Howard [2014] NZTT Waitaki 1991 at [10] – [12].
The landlord was vague when I asked her whether she had lodged the bond with the Bond Centre. She then said she would need to check. She then claimed she had but she did not know when.
Enquiries with the Bond Centre by the Tribunal reveal that there is no bond at all lodged with respect to this tenancy.
I find that the landlord has failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre and I find that it has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.
In Auckland City Council v Blondell, the Court of Appeal stated: 7 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 the conduct.
Section 109 of the RTA confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: •The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. •The effect of the unlawful act. •The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. •The public interest; and •Whether it is just to make the award.
It is established and settled law that the Tribunal must take into account the intent of the party against whom the order for exemplary damages are sought: 8 Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed “intentionally”. In my view negligence does not equate to intention and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has “intentionally” committed an unlawful act, evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind the act and deliberately set about to commit it. 7 [1986] 1 NZLR 732 (CA) at 704 per Cooke P 8 See Chief Executive ex Parte Edmonson v Walls, North Shore Tenancy Tribunal, 548/92, 29 June 1993 at [20].
That there must therefore be evidence of actual intention on the part of the landlord (as opposed to mere negligence) has been accepted in several District Court decisions as being the touchstone. 9
Section 109 (4) provides that: (4) The maximum amount that a person may be ordered to pay under this section for any unlawful act referred to in any section shown in column 1 of Schedule1A is the amount shown opposite that section in column 3 of that schedule.
Section 19 of the RTA deals with “Duties of landlord on receipt of bond”. It provides that a landlord must provide a written receipt for tenancy bond (s 19(1)(a)) and, separately, that the landlord must then forward any bond money to the chief executive within 23 days after the payment is made (s 19(1)(b)).
Section 19(2) and Schedule 1A of the RTA provide that failure to issue a receipt, or to forward any amounts received is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1000

Was there a breach of s 19 of the RTA?

I find that the evidence establishes that a bond of $1800 was collected from the tenant. I find that the landlord failed to issue a receipt for the bond money and failed to send the bond that she received to the Bond Centre. I accept the tenant’s evidence that he did not get a receipt.
There were therefore two breaches of this provision; failing to send the bond to the Bond Centre and failing to issue a receipt. These breaches are unlawful acts.
Pursuant to s 19(2), I find that Okura Ltd has committed unlawful acts by failing to provide receipts for the bond and by failing to send the bond to the Bond Centre.

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages for its breach of s 19 of the RTA?

Ms Miers did not really have any explanation as to why the bond had not been lodged with the Bond Centre. As noted above she had maintained she had done so but did not know the date. At one point she said she had suffered a concussion and put that forward as a reason as to why she might be confused about why she did not do it.
I asked her whether there had been any prior allegation made against her for failure to lodge the bond and she was reluctant to answer the question. I had to ask it a few times. Upon being pressed, she eventually accepted she had.
Tribunal decisions are able to be searched by any member of the public. The Tribunal has located decision [2025] NZTT 5124858, for instance, where the 9 See, for example, A I Property Managers Ltd v Duggan and others [2021] NZDC 9168 and TMT New Zealand Ltd v Sweeney and other [2021] NZDC 16182. landlord was also the landlord in that case in connection with premises in Otaki. I note there are other decisions involving this landlord.
The adjudicator in that case recorded that there had been previous orders against the landlord also for failure to lodge the bond. The adjudicator noted that the amount ordered of $1300 was at the upper end of the scale because she was aware of other orders for the same breach and referred to a further decision of the Tribunal’s at paragraph [11]. Of note, the adjudicator recorded that at a case management conference she had ordered the landlord to send the bond to the Bond Centre but the landlord had failed to do so. The landlord had therefore failed to comply with an order of the tribunal.
The landlord seems to be well aware of the legal obligation to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre but I consider has a very casual approach to complying with legal obligations. Further, the landlord disregards orders of the Tribunal in that she had disregarded and failed to comply with the order of the adjudicator in 5124858 to send the bond to the Bond Centre.
The law relating to the retention of bonds is there to protect tenants. The bond is the tenant’s money and the law reflects the importance of preserving that distinction. As a matter of public policy, it is very important that landlords comply with their obligations as well as familiarising themselves with those obligations.
Failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (see Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).
I find it highly improbable that there was any sort of genuine oversight here and consider the information referred to above overwhelmingly supports the finding that failure to lodge the bond was a very deliberate and intentional act.
I also find that there was no written receipt provided to the tenant for the bond and find that this also was a deliberate act.
I consider this landlord to be very ambivalent towards the notion of observing her obligations under the RTA. I am concerned there may be other tenants of the landlord’s who are in the same position as [The tenant/s].
In the circumstances, I consider it significantly in the public interest to make an award of exemplary damages. There is a strong public interest in maintaining the integrity of the bond system. Deterring other landlords from bypassing the system of bond lodgement is a legitimate consideration in calculating an award for exemplary damages.
An award of exemplary damages is discretionary and s 109 (3) requires that it be just to make an award.
No mitigating factors were raised by the landlord and in the circumstances of this case of a landlord who has now at least three times failed to lodge bond with the Bond Centre (that I am aware of only through a brief search of the Tenancy Tribunal records) I consider that an award of exemplary damages at the ceiling amount of $1500 is compelling.
The question arises whether each of these separate acts, namely failing to provide a written receipt and failing to forward the bond to the Bond Centre give rise to two separate awards for exemplary damages or whether I can only make a global order for one amount of exemplary damages for both breaches.
As noted above, the maximum amount for which an award of exemplary damages can be made is set out in Sch 1A of the RTA. This schedule is titled “amounts for unlawful acts”. It is comprised of three columns, one for the relevant section that has defined the unlawful act, the second for the “description of unlawful act” and the third sets out the maximum amount.
With reference to s 19(2), the second column of the schedule contains the following narration: “breaching duties on receipt of bond”. The maximum amount that can be awarded is $1500.
In Gardner v Upland Bay investments Ltd, 10 the Tribunal had awarded $500 by way of exemplary damages against the landlord for failing to lodge the bond and $1000 for failing to maintain the property. On appeal, the tenants argued that separate awards should have been made for each breach under ss19 and 45 of the RTA, i.e. up to $1000 for failure to lodge the bond, $1000 for failure to provide a bond receipt and $1000 for each individual breach of buildings, health and safety requirements.
The District Court disagreed, stating: [29] However, Schedule 1A is explicit, when setting the maximum amount awardable in relation to both s 19 and 45 breaches, that the maximum applied to the breach of duties (plural), in the case of s 19 and the landlord’s failure to meet obligations (also plural) in respect of s 45. The plural form as adopted by the legislature in both instances indicate that the maximums are in respect to a global or total award for all breaches under the respective sections.
In MBIE v Edgecombe House Ltd, 11 the Tribunal was considering a case where, amongst other things, there were a number of different breaches of s 66I of the RTA. So, several unlawful acts covered by the one section of the RTA. The narration for column 2 that relates to s 66I in Schedule 1 of the RTA states “landlord of boarding house failing to meet obligations in respect of cleanliness, 10 CIV 2014 – 085 – 13, 27 August 2014, Wellington DC 11 [2024] NZTT 4573609 maintenance, smoke alarms, the healthy homes standards, or buildings, health and safety requirements.” The maximum amount to be awarded is $7200.
After a careful analysis of the wording in all of the relevant statutory provisions, the adjudicator concluded that the plain and ordinary meaning of s 109(4) is that, in relation to any of the unlawful acts referred to in s 66I(4), the maximum amount that can be awarded is $7,200. Because s 66I(4) refers to six subsections, and an even larger number of legal obligations, he concluded that it follows that the maximum applies to any of the unlawful acts covered by those provisions.
Part of this rationale was that given the large number of potential breaches covered by s 66I (4), it would make no sense for a landlord who breaches one obligation to be in the same position as a landlord who breaches numerous obligations.
Since this decision, the District Court in MBIE v Hillis Shearing Ltd 12 has endorsed the finding in Gardner, concluding that a global approach to exemplary damages is to be taken in the case of the landlord’s obligations under 45(1), with the District Court stating: 13 This maximum amount would be meaningless if breaches under S 45 could be punished separately with the maximum amount multiplied a number of times over.
The decisions in Hillis Shearing Ltd and Gardner are binding on me. Therefore, the maximum amount that can be awarded by way of exemplary damages with respect to the failure to provide written receipts for tenancy bonds and to forward the bond to the Bond Centre is $1500. I find that the landlord must pay the sum of $1500 to the tenant as ordered above. Did the landlord comply with the H e a l t h y H o m e s S t a n d a r d s ( HHS) for heating, draught stopping, ventilation and insulation? If so, should exemplary damages be awarded?
The tenant obtained a Healthy Homes Report dated 13 May 2025. It was provided to the landlord shortly thereafter and submitted to the Tribunal.
The report is comprehensive and records that it is a record of what was inspected on the day.
Other than the heating, drainage and guttering, the report records that the property was non-compliant with HHS.
In terms of insulation, it records that there was no underfloor insulation at all or underfloor ground barrier but that there was no access to the ceiling to check insulation there, noting that there was a unit above. 12 [2024] NZ DC 207583 13 at [22]
Regarding ventilation, it records that there is no extractor fan in the bathroom or the kitchen and so the property is non-compliant with HHS.
Regarding moisture and mould, the inspector records that was black mould on the walls, windows and windowsills in the bedroom and that the premises were cold and damp. The inspector observed there was a dehumidifier being operated to draw the moisture out of the son’s bedroom. Also, that there was black mould in the kitchen, bathroom and hallway with all areas being cold and damp. The inspector found the premises to be non-compliant with HHS.
Regarding draughts, the report concluded that the premises was non-compliant, observing that there was a gap in the back door between the door and the door frame, that carpet had been placed over one of the doors that the windows do not shut properly. The inspector concluded that the property was non-compliant with HHS.
The inspector also found other issues being holes in the interior floor, currently covered by furniture for safety, a toilet that was lifting off the floor, moving and smelling of sewerage, the ceiling peeling away throughout the home with soft damp walls in areas indicating possible water damage, ceiling lagging in the kitchen area indicating possible water damage, water leaks down the hall in the kitchen, weatherboards supporting the deck were rotten and broken, deck boards were rotten and broken there was an earthquake prone building notice. These issues fall to be determined under s 45 of the RTA and I deal with them below.
There were a large number of photographs accompanying the conclusions of the inspector. These photographs corroborated the report and frankly show the property to be in an appalling condition. There is black mould everywhere. These premises are not suitable for a child to be living in. The toilet situation is completely unhygienic and appalling.
Tenancies which were started between 28 August 2022 and 2 March 2025 – such as this one – must comply with HHS within 120 days (so, by late December 14 ). As of 1 July 2025, all private rentals must comply with the HHS.
I accept the conclusions of the Healthy Homes Report provided by the tenant and I find that the premises were non-compliant with HHS in the respects alleged, as I go on to explain below. The landlord did not challenge any of those conclusions. Her response is that she was wanting to get her own report and has not been able to do so because of alleged abuse by the tenant of her contractor. That is no excuse. The landlord’s obligation was to be compliant with HHS within 120 days, not when a tenant complained about it. 14 Around the time when the tenant started complaining about issues with the property.
A landlord has an obligation to comply with HHS under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 set out the standards that a landlord must meet for heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage.
If the landlord breaches their obligation to comply with the HHS under s 45(1)(bb) it is deemed to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1, RTA.
As noted above, exemplary damages are not compensatory in nature but are a penalty that is awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion in cases of serious breach to mark the Tribunals’ disapproval and deter a party from future such offences.
The HHS have received a significant amount of media attention and have been significant in improving the quality of housing available for rent in New Zealand. A landlord is deemed to know the law.
The effect on the tenant of these premises being non-compliant is that he and his child have lived in premises for nearly one year they do not comply with HHS. Draught stopping
The draught stopping standard requires the premises to be free from gaps between, and holes in, building elements that are not intentional parts of the construction, and allow draughts into or out of the premises, and are unreasonable 15 . “Building elements” is defined as meaning a wall, floor, ceiling, window, skylight, roof, door, or other built component of any premises . 16 In determining whether a gap or hole is unreasonable the following matters may be taken into consideration 17 : a)The size and location of the gap or hole; b)The extent of the draught that is allowed through the gap or hole c)If there are more than 1 gap or hole at the premises and the total draught allowed through d)The likely impact a draught from the gap or hole will have on heat loss in the premises e)Any other relevant matters. 15 Clause 26(1) Residential Tenancies (HHS) Regulations 16 Clause 3 Residential Tenancies (HHS) Regulations 17 Clause 26(2) Residential Tenancies (HHS) Regulations
The Tenancy Services’ website contains a guide for assessing whether a property is compliant with the draught stopping standard 18 . It points out that the age and condition of the premises should not be considered when determining if a gap or hole is unreasonable, and that as a rule of thumb gaps or holes with a width greater than 3mm (the size of the edge of a New Zealand $2 coin) in or around walls, ceilings, windows, doors and floors that let air into and out of the premises will usually require blocking to prevent unreasonable draughts.
I am satisfied the gaps identified will create draughts and impact on heat loss in the premises. Therefore, I find the premises does not comply with the HHS draught stopping requirements.
I find intention is proven on the part of the landlord for the gaps as they do not comply with the HHS and meeting those standards is a fundamental obligation of the landlord. The landlord has not assessed the property to see whether it meets the HHS as i t should have been done.
The effect on the tenant is that the gaps have made the house draughty and resulted in heat loss. The tenant did not inform the landlord of his complaints about the property until around December last year but this is no excuse. It is in the public interest that tenants can live in premises that are reasonably draught free to mitigate cold and damp.
Even if this was not a breach of HHS it would amount to a breach of s 45 of the RTA. Lack of Extractor fan in the bathroom and the kitchen
The HHS ventilation standard requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity 13 .
From the evidence I am satisfied that the bathroom a n d k i t c h e n did not have an extractor fan and therefore does not comply with the HHS.
For the same reasons set out above I find the landlord is deemed to know the law and failing to comply with the HHS ventilation requirements is fundamental and properly seen as intentional.
Without an extractor fan, moisture and resulting mould can result. It is in the public interest that rental properties have adequate extraction of moisture from bathrooms. Insulation 18 www.tenancy.govt.nz/healthy-homes/draught/
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises had to be insulated to a minimum standard (see s 45(1)(bb) RTA and Part 2 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarm and Insulation) Regulations 2016). Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation had to have an R-value of at least 1.9, or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction. The underfloor insulation had to have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation had to be in reasonable condition.
The 2016 Regulations cease to apply and are replaced by the Residential Tenancies (HHS) Regulations 2019 depending on the HHS compliance date set out in the 2019 Regulations. The HHS in the 2019 Regulations require that the higher standards of R-2.9 and R-3.3 for ceiling insulation apply to all rented premises.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is impractical to install insulation, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated. In this case I am satisfied that there was not a space above the ceiling for insulation to be placed but I consider that below the floor there was.
The property was not exempt from insulation underneath the flooring.
The tenant’s experience is that the house was cold. This was not challenged by the landlord at all who simply constantly maintained she wanted to get her own HHS report and had not been able to do so. The tenant points out that the contractors quote for renovations do not include any attendances towards HHS.
I consider that there is good evidence provided – unchallenged by the landlord – that the insulation does not comply as noted above.
I deal with the other findings of the inspector referred to above as well as the findings concerning the level of mould further below under my consideration of the question of breach of s 45 of the RTA.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

For the above reasons I consider it just to make an award for exemplary damages as a result of the landlord’s non-compliance with the HHS standards noted above.
The maximum amount that can be awarded is $7,200.
I consider that the landlord’s actions in failing to comply with these obligations to be deliberate. The landlord gave no evidence or indication that she was not aware of the HHS. I note that the other tribunal decision I refer to above also included an award for exemplary damages for maintenance, repairs and smoke alarms as well as the relevant HHS information not been provided. The landlord must clearly be aware of HHS, but chooses to ignore her obligations.
I find an award of 60 % of the maximum amount able to be awarded is appropriate when considering all of the above factors and to send a message that landlords c a n n o t ignore their obligations under the law to meet HHS requirements, and to deter the landlord from any future such breaches.
Accordingly, an award of $4320 in favour of the tenant is made. Section 45 of the RTA
The landlord has an obligation to the tenant under the above provision to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Under s 45 of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. A landlord must also comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. 19
The obligation of the landlord to provide premises in a reasonable state of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage (see Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 20 ) Further, a tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises and the need for repair. 21
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. The landlord's obligation is to then repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair. 22
These premises are clearly susceptible to black mould, most likely because of the lack of insulation and other evidence of dampness.
I have recorded above and accept the findings of the HHS inspector about the holes, the dislodged and smelling toilet, the ceiling peeling away, dampness in the walls, the sagging ceiling and kitchen area and other evidence of water damage as well as the other findings noted above.
All of these conditions meant that the premises were not maintained or provided in a reasonable state of repair at the commencement of the tenancy.
A tenant should not be dealing with the situation of a toilet that is not properly secured to the floor and smelling of sewerage. This is completely unhygienic and a very inadequate position for a young person to be living in. The dampness, 19 Section 45 of the RTA 20 DC Auckland CIV 2005 004 1762, at [28] 21 S 40(1)(d) of the RTA, Vu v Hutchings [2016 ] NZTT 4054247, at [13] 22 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009 085 1431, at [15] moisture and cold are also unacceptable for anyone to be living in much less a child.
The tenant was complaining about these issues late last year. The landlord says the tenant has been abusing her contractor. The tenant denies this and the landlord did not call the contractor to give evidence. I accept the tenant’s position. It would make no sense for him to be sending someone away from the property when they were there to fix it.
Ms Miers complained that the tenant had not submitted details of his power bills - his evidence has been his power bills have shot up by $200 per month to pay for the dehumidifier and the heating. I am not all surprised by that increase, but I agree the bills have not been submitted. I intend to award the tenant compensation for these breaches of s 45 of the RTA in the sum of $1500 by way of a global sum for all breaches.
I also consider it appropriate to make the work orders noted above pursuant to s 78(1)(e) of the RTA, both in respect to the s 45 failures ordered above as well as the HHS deficiencies. If the landlord needs the tenant to vacate the premises prior to any work being done, then that can be the subject of appropriate notices and a subsequent application if necessary.
I voiced my concern during the hearing as to the ongoing liveability situation at the property however the tenant has impressed upon me the difficulty he has finding alternative accommodation for himself and his child. Because there is a child involved, I am very hesitant to bring the tenancy to end and hence I have made the work orders noted above. These orders need to be complied with within the timeframe stated and the tenant is urged to continue to find alternative accommodation.
For completion purposes I note that there were no submissions or evidence made to me about the earthquake proof situation. I have therefore not made any findings about that. This needs to be looked into by the landlord and remedied, if there is an issue there.
I have awarded a total sum in favour of the tenant of $7820. This can be set- off against the landlord’s claim for rent, with the consequence that the landlord owes the tenant the amount ordered above. It follows that the landlord is not entitled to termination.
The tenant is entitled to name suppression. The address of the premises, however, needs to be published in the interests of other members of the public who may choose to reside at this premises.

Order

The landlord must immediately pay the bond of $1800 to the Bond Centre.
The landlord is to pay the tenant the sum of $3448.57 as set out in the table below: itemIn favour of tenantIn favour of landlord Rent owing as at 4.7.25$4371.43 Exemplary damages for failure to lodge bond and provide written receipt $1500 Exemplary damages for breach of HHS $4320 Compensation by way of failure of landlord to comply with s 45 of the

RTA

$2000 Total$7820$4371.43

Total payable by landlord to tenant $3448.57

The landlord must perform the following work orders pursuant to s 78(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA): a. Remedy the breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards referred to in paragraphs 70 to 95 of this decision within a reasonable time of the date of this decision. b. Immediately fix the toilet which is loose and emitting a sewerage smell. c. Immediately fill in all holes in the interior floor and all other gaps at the property that are letting in cold air and draughts. d. Immediately repair all rotting weatherboards in the deck. e. Produce a Healthy Homes report at the completion of this work to confirm the property is Healthy Homes compliant.
Until the work identified at 3 (a) to 3 (d) above is completed, the rent is to abate (reduce) by $100 per week, from 4 July 2025.
I direct that a copy of this decision be sent to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy commenced on 26 August 2024 and is ongoing. The tenant lives in the premises with his 12 year old son. The rent is $450 per week.
The premises is one of several premises contained in the one building.
The landlord is seeking an order for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that rent has been owing for more than 21 days. Ms Donna Miers, who appeared for the landlord, said the rent owing as at the date of the hearing (4 July 2025) was $5271.43. 1
The tenant says he has a valid cross application for breach of Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) by the landlord, failure to lodge the bond within the required 1 I note that only in her reply to [The tenant/s] opposition submissions, Ms Miers alluded to three alleged instances of antisocial behaviour as grounds for termination. She had not however advanced any submission in that regard in her opening submissions. Further, I gather that the alleged instances all related to difficulties between [The tenant/s] and a contractor, the narrative of which is disputed. The contractor did not give any evidence at the hearing. time frame and failure to give him any receipt. He seeks exemplary damages of $18,000. 2 He is also asking for compensation for stress and for his power bills, which have jumped by around $200 per week because he is having to keep the dehumidifier on all the time.
He also sought reimbursement of expenses and payment for various work he did on the premises, but I explained to him during the hearing that this was not within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
He claimed that there had been discrimination but advanced no submissions on this aspect and withdrew it. I gather that the scope of that submission was that the landlord had been defaming him by speaking negatively of him to others. Events leading to the hearing on 1 May 2025
The landlord applied for termination on 30 March 2025 on the grounds of rent arrears then owing of $3,150.
This matter first came before me on 1 May 2025. My order records that the tenant had his own claim for breach of HHS. I recorded that the tenant was claiming: a. There is no insulation in the property b. There are gaps in the walls c. There is no extractor fan in the kitchen and the bathroom d. The windows are leaking e. A bathroom window does not open f. There is black mould in the home g. The landlord failed to lodge the bond at the Bond Centre
The tenant claims that the landlord essentially takes advantage of vulnerable tenants who struggle to find tenancies because of their records.
The landlord denied all claims. She considers that she helps people obtain accommodation where they may not otherwise be able to do so.
At the first hearing I made orders for the tenant to reinstate the weekly rent payments, with the first payment to start on 8 May. I note that rent record provided by the landlord shows that two payments of $450 were paid on 7 and 8 May. So rent was reinstated. 2 I note that the tenant had alluded in his material to breaches by the landlord of her other obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), listing off a large number of provisions of the RTA to me at one point during the hearing, without giving any further details. The scope of the submissions he made were advanced on the basis of breach of HHS, breach of s 45 of the RTA and failure to lodge the bond. I explained to both parties during the hearing that it was their obligation to expand on their submissions and point me to any relevant evidence they relied on rather than simply alleging generic breaches of provisions of the RTA without more.
I then set all of the applications down for further hearing before me, giving the tenant time to file his own application and supporting evidence. Application for rehearing
For completion purposes, I mention that the landlord submitted an application for rehearing of my order of 1 May 2025, out of time. The landlord withdrew that application at the commencement of the hearing on 4 July. The landlord maintains however that I was wrong to have not terminated at the first hearing, given the rent was owing for more than 21 days. She claims that Tenancy Services had told her termination was required. I return to this issue below, as this submission was forcefully advanced by the landlord several times during the hearing. Issues and evidence
As noted above, I heard directly from the landlord’s representative, Ms Miers, at the hearing. I heard evidence from the tenant as well as another resident at the premises.
The matter heard over a half day hearing. The parties were given ample opportunity to make submissions before the hearing concluded. 3
The issues before me are: a. How much rent does the tenant owe the tenant? b. Did the landlord send the bond to the Bond Centre and provide the tenant with a receipt for the bond? c. Has the landlord breached the HHS? d. Is the landlord in breach of s 45 of the RTA? Burden of proof
Before I go on to consider the issues in this case, I begin by noting that in regard to the burden of proof, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. They must establish that what they are claiming is more probable than not.
Independent witnesses, corroborating documents. reports and photographs can be an important part of discharging this burden. 3 The landlord did not seek any adjournment or request any further time to make additional submissions, at one point saying that the matter needed to be brought to a conclusion now. Her primary submission in response to the tenant’s application is that she has been unable to get access to the property to conduct her own healthy homes report.
As I explained to both parties at the hearing, it is for them to collect the relevant evidence they rely on make submissions on it at the hearing itself. The Tribunal does not work out a party’s case for them. Corroborating information can be an important part of proving a claim but ultimately it is over to the parties as to what evidence they decide to bring and call at the hearing. It is not for the Tribunal to extract or locate the evidence, or to hunt down and call witnesses itself.
Ultimately it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, in practical terms this means that: 4 ...[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.

What is owing for rent?

I deal first with the question of rent.
The landlord says the rent now owing is $5271.43 as at 4 July 2025. The landlord provided a rent summary proving that this was the amount owing.
The tenant claims that an additional amount of $900 has been paid by the Ministry of Social Development direct to the landlord. The tenant has supplied a letter from the Ministry of Social Development recording this payment. The letter is dated 17 September 2024 and records the terms of a rent arrears grant, with the supplier being the landlord and the amount being $900.
It records that payment to the landlord was by way of direct credit and that [The tenant/s] is to pay back the amount advanced by way of two dollars per week. The landlord’s response to this letter was she had not received the payment.
I am satisfied that [The tenant/s] has proven on the balance of probabilities that this additional payment was made to the landlord. I consider it more probable than not that a payment of $900 has been made by MSD which has not been accounted for.
Therefore, the total rent owing, subject to what I say below, is $4,371.43 as at 4 July 2024.
The landlord’s second claim is for the cost of replacing 13 windows which have been smashed. She claims that the tenant did this. During the hearing she said she was contacted by another tenant at the premises to say it was the tenant who smashed the windows. That tenant gave evidence at the hearing that he said no 4 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy DC Waitakere 233/02, 12 April 2002, at [7]. such thing and simply said it looked like rocks had been thrown up from the bottom of the property.
The tenant denies causing any damage to the property by smashing windows.
I find that the evidence supported by the landlord falls well short of establishing that the windows were smashed by the tenant. As this allegation is akin to what would be regarded as a criminal act, more cogent evidence is required but in any event there is simply nothing at all that corroborates the landlord’s claim that the tenant cause this damage and I therefore dismiss it. I note further that no cost has actually been incurred in remedying this damage. All I have from the landlord is a quote for the repairs. Set off
As I explained and reiterated to the landlord several times during the hearing, the fact that rent is owing is not the end of the matter.
It is well established that the Tenancy Tribunal applies equitable principles of law, such as set off. An equitable set offers a defence to a claim for rent arising from the tenancy agreement, directly from the landlord tenant relationship or with a sufficiently close connection to the tenancy agreement. 5 A tenancy should not be terminated if a set off by the tenant reduces rent arrears to less than 21 days. 6
What this means is I cannot merely consider the landlord’s claim in a vacuum, despite the fact the landlord urged me to essentially do so. I must also consider whether any set-off arises and therefore whether there is any validity to the tenant’s application.
I now proceed to consider the tenant’s application. Failure to lodge the bond
The tenant claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time frame, nor provided a receipt for the bond.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 5 Grant v NZMC Ltd [1989 ] 1 NZLR 8 (CA) at 12 – 13 6 Lal v Howard [2014] NZTT Waitaki 1991 at [10] – [12].
The landlord was vague when I asked her whether she had lodged the bond with the Bond Centre. She then said she would need to check. She then claimed she had but she did not know when.
Enquiries with the Bond Centre by the Tribunal reveal that there is no bond at all lodged with respect to this tenancy.
I find that the landlord has failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre and I find that it has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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.
In Auckland City Council v Blondell, the Court of Appeal stated: 7 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 the conduct.
Section 109 of the RTA confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: •The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. •The effect of the unlawful act. •The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. •The public interest; and •Whether it is just to make the award.
It is established and settled law that the Tribunal must take into account the intent of the party against whom the order for exemplary damages are sought: 8 Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed “intentionally”. In my view negligence does not equate to intention and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has “intentionally” committed an unlawful act, evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind the act and deliberately set about to commit it. 7 [1986] 1 NZLR 732 (CA) at 704 per Cooke P 8 See Chief Executive ex Parte Edmonson v Walls, North Shore Tenancy Tribunal, 548/92, 29 June 1993 at [20].
That there must therefore be evidence of actual intention on the part of the landlord (as opposed to mere negligence) has been accepted in several District Court decisions as being the touchstone. 9
Section 109 (4) provides that: (4) The maximum amount that a person may be ordered to pay under this section for any unlawful act referred to in any section shown in column 1 of Schedule1A is the amount shown opposite that section in column 3 of that schedule.
Section 19 of the RTA deals with “Duties of landlord on receipt of bond”. It provides that a landlord must provide a written receipt for tenancy bond (s 19(1)(a)) and, separately, that the landlord must then forward any bond money to the chief executive within 23 days after the payment is made (s 19(1)(b)).
Section 19(2) and Schedule 1A of the RTA provide that failure to issue a receipt, or to forward any amounts received is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1000

Was there a breach of s 19 of the RTA?

I find that the evidence establishes that a bond of $1800 was collected from the tenant. I find that the landlord failed to issue a receipt for the bond money and failed to send the bond that she received to the Bond Centre. I accept the tenant’s evidence that he did not get a receipt.
There were therefore two breaches of this provision; failing to send the bond to the Bond Centre and failing to issue a receipt. These breaches are unlawful acts.
Pursuant to s 19(2), I find that Okura Ltd has committed unlawful acts by failing to provide receipts for the bond and by failing to send the bond to the Bond Centre.

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages for its breach of s 19 of the RTA?

Ms Miers did not really have any explanation as to why the bond had not been lodged with the Bond Centre. As noted above she had maintained she had done so but did not know the date. At one point she said she had suffered a concussion and put that forward as a reason as to why she might be confused about why she did not do it.
I asked her whether there had been any prior allegation made against her for failure to lodge the bond and she was reluctant to answer the question. I had to ask it a few times. Upon being pressed, she eventually accepted she had.
Tribunal decisions are able to be searched by any member of the public. The Tribunal has located decision [2025] NZTT 5124858, for instance, where the 9 See, for example, A I Property Managers Ltd v Duggan and others [2021] NZDC 9168 and TMT New Zealand Ltd v Sweeney and other [2021] NZDC 16182. landlord was also the landlord in that case in connection with premises in Otaki. I note there are other decisions involving this landlord.
The adjudicator in that case recorded that there had been previous orders against the landlord also for failure to lodge the bond. The adjudicator noted that the amount ordered of $1300 was at the upper end of the scale because she was aware of other orders for the same breach and referred to a further decision of the Tribunal’s at paragraph [11]. Of note, the adjudicator recorded that at a case management conference she had ordered the landlord to send the bond to the Bond Centre but the landlord had failed to do so. The landlord had therefore failed to comply with an order of the tribunal.
The landlord seems to be well aware of the legal obligation to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre but I consider has a very casual approach to complying with legal obligations. Further, the landlord disregards orders of the Tribunal in that she had disregarded and failed to comply with the order of the adjudicator in 5124858 to send the bond to the Bond Centre.
The law relating to the retention of bonds is there to protect tenants. The bond is the tenant’s money and the law reflects the importance of preserving that distinction. As a matter of public policy, it is very important that landlords comply with their obligations as well as familiarising themselves with those obligations.
Failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (see Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).
I find it highly improbable that there was any sort of genuine oversight here and consider the information referred to above overwhelmingly supports the finding that failure to lodge the bond was a very deliberate and intentional act.
I also find that there was no written receipt provided to the tenant for the bond and find that this also was a deliberate act.
I consider this landlord to be very ambivalent towards the notion of observing her obligations under the RTA. I am concerned there may be other tenants of the landlord’s who are in the same position as [The tenant/s].
In the circumstances, I consider it significantly in the public interest to make an award of exemplary damages. There is a strong public interest in maintaining the integrity of the bond system. Deterring other landlords from bypassing the system of bond lodgement is a legitimate consideration in calculating an award for exemplary damages.
An award of exemplary damages is discretionary and s 109 (3) requires that it be just to make an award.
No mitigating factors were raised by the landlord and in the circumstances of this case of a landlord who has now at least three times failed to lodge bond with the Bond Centre (that I am aware of only through a brief search of the Tenancy Tribunal records) I consider that an award of exemplary damages at the ceiling amount of $1500 is compelling.
The question arises whether each of these separate acts, namely failing to provide a written receipt and failing to forward the bond to the Bond Centre give rise to two separate awards for exemplary damages or whether I can only make a global order for one amount of exemplary damages for both breaches.
As noted above, the maximum amount for which an award of exemplary damages can be made is set out in Sch 1A of the RTA. This schedule is titled “amounts for unlawful acts”. It is comprised of three columns, one for the relevant section that has defined the unlawful act, the second for the “description of unlawful act” and the third sets out the maximum amount.
With reference to s 19(2), the second column of the schedule contains the following narration: “breaching duties on receipt of bond”. The maximum amount that can be awarded is $1500.
In Gardner v Upland Bay investments Ltd, 10 the Tribunal had awarded $500 by way of exemplary damages against the landlord for failing to lodge the bond and $1000 for failing to maintain the property. On appeal, the tenants argued that separate awards should have been made for each breach under ss19 and 45 of the RTA, i.e. up to $1000 for failure to lodge the bond, $1000 for failure to provide a bond receipt and $1000 for each individual breach of buildings, health and safety requirements.
The District Court disagreed, stating: [29] However, Schedule 1A is explicit, when setting the maximum amount awardable in relation to both s 19 and 45 breaches, that the maximum applied to the breach of duties (plural), in the case of s 19 and the landlord’s failure to meet obligations (also plural) in respect of s 45. The plural form as adopted by the legislature in both instances indicate that the maximums are in respect to a global or total award for all breaches under the respective sections.
In MBIE v Edgecombe House Ltd, 11 the Tribunal was considering a case where, amongst other things, there were a number of different breaches of s 66I of the RTA. So, several unlawful acts covered by the one section of the RTA. The narration for column 2 that relates to s 66I in Schedule 1 of the RTA states “landlord of boarding house failing to meet obligations in respect of cleanliness, 10 CIV 2014 – 085 – 13, 27 August 2014, Wellington DC 11 [2024] NZTT 4573609 maintenance, smoke alarms, the healthy homes standards, or buildings, health and safety requirements.” The maximum amount to be awarded is $7200.
After a careful analysis of the wording in all of the relevant statutory provisions, the adjudicator concluded that the plain and ordinary meaning of s 109(4) is that, in relation to any of the unlawful acts referred to in s 66I(4), the maximum amount that can be awarded is $7,200. Because s 66I(4) refers to six subsections, and an even larger number of legal obligations, he concluded that it follows that the maximum applies to any of the unlawful acts covered by those provisions.
Part of this rationale was that given the large number of potential breaches covered by s 66I (4), it would make no sense for a landlord who breaches one obligation to be in the same position as a landlord who breaches numerous obligations.
Since this decision, the District Court in MBIE v Hillis Shearing Ltd 12 has endorsed the finding in Gardner, concluding that a global approach to exemplary damages is to be taken in the case of the landlord’s obligations under 45(1), with the District Court stating: 13 This maximum amount would be meaningless if breaches under S 45 could be punished separately with the maximum amount multiplied a number of times over.
The decisions in Hillis Shearing Ltd and Gardner are binding on me. Therefore, the maximum amount that can be awarded by way of exemplary damages with respect to the failure to provide written receipts for tenancy bonds and to forward the bond to the Bond Centre is $1500. I find that the landlord must pay the sum of $1500 to the tenant as ordered above. Did the landlord comply with the H e a l t h y H o m e s S t a n d a r d s ( HHS) for heating, draught stopping, ventilation and insulation? If so, should exemplary damages be awarded?
The tenant obtained a Healthy Homes Report dated 13 May 2025. It was provided to the landlord shortly thereafter and submitted to the Tribunal.
The report is comprehensive and records that it is a record of what was inspected on the day.
Other than the heating, drainage and guttering, the report records that the property was non-compliant with HHS.
In terms of insulation, it records that there was no underfloor insulation at all or underfloor ground barrier but that there was no access to the ceiling to check insulation there, noting that there was a unit above. 12 [2024] NZ DC 207583 13 at [22]
Regarding ventilation, it records that there is no extractor fan in the bathroom or the kitchen and so the property is non-compliant with HHS.
Regarding moisture and mould, the inspector records that was black mould on the walls, windows and windowsills in the bedroom and that the premises were cold and damp. The inspector observed there was a dehumidifier being operated to draw the moisture out of the son’s bedroom. Also, that there was black mould in the kitchen, bathroom and hallway with all areas being cold and damp. The inspector found the premises to be non-compliant with HHS.
Regarding draughts, the report concluded that the premises was non-compliant, observing that there was a gap in the back door between the door and the door frame, that carpet had been placed over one of the doors that the windows do not shut properly. The inspector concluded that the property was non-compliant with HHS.
The inspector also found other issues being holes in the interior floor, currently covered by furniture for safety, a toilet that was lifting off the floor, moving and smelling of sewerage, the ceiling peeling away throughout the home with soft damp walls in areas indicating possible water damage, ceiling lagging in the kitchen area indicating possible water damage, water leaks down the hall in the kitchen, weatherboards supporting the deck were rotten and broken, deck boards were rotten and broken there was an earthquake prone building notice. These issues fall to be determined under s 45 of the RTA and I deal with them below.
There were a large number of photographs accompanying the conclusions of the inspector. These photographs corroborated the report and frankly show the property to be in an appalling condition. There is black mould everywhere. These premises are not suitable for a child to be living in. The toilet situation is completely unhygienic and appalling.
Tenancies which were started between 28 August 2022 and 2 March 2025 – such as this one – must comply with HHS within 120 days (so, by late December 14 ). As of 1 July 2025, all private rentals must comply with the HHS.
I accept the conclusions of the Healthy Homes Report provided by the tenant and I find that the premises were non-compliant with HHS in the respects alleged, as I go on to explain below. The landlord did not challenge any of those conclusions. Her response is that she was wanting to get her own report and has not been able to do so because of alleged abuse by the tenant of her contractor. That is no excuse. The landlord’s obligation was to be compliant with HHS within 120 days, not when a tenant complained about it. 14 Around the time when the tenant started complaining about issues with the property.
A landlord has an obligation to comply with HHS under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 set out the standards that a landlord must meet for heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage.
If the landlord breaches their obligation to comply with the HHS under s 45(1)(bb) it is deemed to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1, RTA.
As noted above, exemplary damages are not compensatory in nature but are a penalty that is awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion in cases of serious breach to mark the Tribunals’ disapproval and deter a party from future such offences.
The HHS have received a significant amount of media attention and have been significant in improving the quality of housing available for rent in New Zealand. A landlord is deemed to know the law.
The effect on the tenant of these premises being non-compliant is that he and his child have lived in premises for nearly one year they do not comply with HHS. Draught stopping
The draught stopping standard requires the premises to be free from gaps between, and holes in, building elements that are not intentional parts of the construction, and allow draughts into or out of the premises, and are unreasonable 15 . “Building elements” is defined as meaning a wall, floor, ceiling, window, skylight, roof, door, or other built component of any premises . 16 In determining whether a gap or hole is unreasonable the following matters may be taken into consideration 17 : a)The size and location of the gap or hole; b)The extent of the draught that is allowed through the gap or hole c)If there are more than 1 gap or hole at the premises and the total draught allowed through d)The likely impact a draught from the gap or hole will have on heat loss in the premises e)Any other relevant matters. 15 Clause 26(1) Residential Tenancies (HHS) Regulations 16 Clause 3 Residential Tenancies (HHS) Regulations 17 Clause 26(2) Residential Tenancies (HHS) Regulations
The Tenancy Services’ website contains a guide for assessing whether a property is compliant with the draught stopping standard 18 . It points out that the age and condition of the premises should not be considered when determining if a gap or hole is unreasonable, and that as a rule of thumb gaps or holes with a width greater than 3mm (the size of the edge of a New Zealand $2 coin) in or around walls, ceilings, windows, doors and floors that let air into and out of the premises will usually require blocking to prevent unreasonable draughts.
I am satisfied the gaps identified will create draughts and impact on heat loss in the premises. Therefore, I find the premises does not comply with the HHS draught stopping requirements.
I find intention is proven on the part of the landlord for the gaps as they do not comply with the HHS and meeting those standards is a fundamental obligation of the landlord. The landlord has not assessed the property to see whether it meets the HHS as i t should have been done.
The effect on the tenant is that the gaps have made the house draughty and resulted in heat loss. The tenant did not inform the landlord of his complaints about the property until around December last year but this is no excuse. It is in the public interest that tenants can live in premises that are reasonably draught free to mitigate cold and damp.
Even if this was not a breach of HHS it would amount to a breach of s 45 of the RTA. Lack of Extractor fan in the bathroom and the kitchen
The HHS ventilation standard requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity 13 .
From the evidence I am satisfied that the bathroom a n d k i t c h e n did not have an extractor fan and therefore does not comply with the HHS.
For the same reasons set out above I find the landlord is deemed to know the law and failing to comply with the HHS ventilation requirements is fundamental and properly seen as intentional.
Without an extractor fan, moisture and resulting mould can result. It is in the public interest that rental properties have adequate extraction of moisture from bathrooms. Insulation 18 www.tenancy.govt.nz/healthy-homes/draught/
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises had to be insulated to a minimum standard (see s 45(1)(bb) RTA and Part 2 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarm and Insulation) Regulations 2016). Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation had to have an R-value of at least 1.9, or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction. The underfloor insulation had to have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation had to be in reasonable condition.
The 2016 Regulations cease to apply and are replaced by the Residential Tenancies (HHS) Regulations 2019 depending on the HHS compliance date set out in the 2019 Regulations. The HHS in the 2019 Regulations require that the higher standards of R-2.9 and R-3.3 for ceiling insulation apply to all rented premises.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is impractical to install insulation, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated. In this case I am satisfied that there was not a space above the ceiling for insulation to be placed but I consider that below the floor there was.
The property was not exempt from insulation underneath the flooring.
The tenant’s experience is that the house was cold. This was not challenged by the landlord at all who simply constantly maintained she wanted to get her own HHS report and had not been able to do so. The tenant points out that the contractors quote for renovations do not include any attendances towards HHS.
I consider that there is good evidence provided – unchallenged by the landlord – that the insulation does not comply as noted above.
I deal with the other findings of the inspector referred to above as well as the findings concerning the level of mould further below under my consideration of the question of breach of s 45 of the RTA.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

For the above reasons I consider it just to make an award for exemplary damages as a result of the landlord’s non-compliance with the HHS standards noted above.
The maximum amount that can be awarded is $7,200.
I consider that the landlord’s actions in failing to comply with these obligations to be deliberate. The landlord gave no evidence or indication that she was not aware of the HHS. I note that the other tribunal decision I refer to above also included an award for exemplary damages for maintenance, repairs and smoke alarms as well as the relevant HHS information not been provided. The landlord must clearly be aware of HHS, but chooses to ignore her obligations.
I find an award of 60 % of the maximum amount able to be awarded is appropriate when considering all of the above factors and to send a message that landlords c a n n o t ignore their obligations under the law to meet HHS requirements, and to deter the landlord from any future such breaches.
Accordingly, an award of $4320 in favour of the tenant is made. Section 45 of the RTA
The landlord has an obligation to the tenant under the above provision to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Under s 45 of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. A landlord must also comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. 19
The obligation of the landlord to provide premises in a reasonable state of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage (see Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 20 ) Further, a tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises and the need for repair. 21
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. The landlord's obligation is to then repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair. 22
These premises are clearly susceptible to black mould, most likely because of the lack of insulation and other evidence of dampness.
I have recorded above and accept the findings of the HHS inspector about the holes, the dislodged and smelling toilet, the ceiling peeling away, dampness in the walls, the sagging ceiling and kitchen area and other evidence of water damage as well as the other findings noted above.
All of these conditions meant that the premises were not maintained or provided in a reasonable state of repair at the commencement of the tenancy.
A tenant should not be dealing with the situation of a toilet that is not properly secured to the floor and smelling of sewerage. This is completely unhygienic and a very inadequate position for a young person to be living in. The dampness, 19 Section 45 of the RTA 20 DC Auckland CIV 2005 004 1762, at [28] 21 S 40(1)(d) of the RTA, Vu v Hutchings [2016 ] NZTT 4054247, at [13] 22 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009 085 1431, at [15] moisture and cold are also unacceptable for anyone to be living in much less a child.
The tenant was complaining about these issues late last year. The landlord says the tenant has been abusing her contractor. The tenant denies this and the landlord did not call the contractor to give evidence. I accept the tenant’s position. It would make no sense for him to be sending someone away from the property when they were there to fix it.
Ms Miers complained that the tenant had not submitted details of his power bills - his evidence has been his power bills have shot up by $200 per month to pay for the dehumidifier and the heating. I am not all surprised by that increase, but I agree the bills have not been submitted. I intend to award the tenant compensation for these breaches of s 45 of the RTA in the sum of $1500 by way of a global sum for all breaches.
I also consider it appropriate to make the work orders noted above pursuant to s 78(1)(e) of the RTA, both in respect to the s 45 failures ordered above as well as the HHS deficiencies. If the landlord needs the tenant to vacate the premises prior to any work being done, then that can be the subject of appropriate notices and a subsequent application if necessary.
I voiced my concern during the hearing as to the ongoing liveability situation at the property however the tenant has impressed upon me the difficulty he has finding alternative accommodation for himself and his child. Because there is a child involved, I am very hesitant to bring the tenancy to end and hence I have made the work orders noted above. These orders need to be complied with within the timeframe stated and the tenant is urged to continue to find alternative accommodation.
For completion purposes I note that there were no submissions or evidence made to me about the earthquake proof situation. I have therefore not made any findings about that. This needs to be looked into by the landlord and remedied, if there is an issue there.
I have awarded a total sum in favour of the tenant of $7820. This can be set- off against the landlord’s claim for rent, with the consequence that the landlord owes the tenant the amount ordered above. It follows that the landlord is not entitled to termination.
The tenant is entitled to name suppression. The address of the premises, however, needs to be published in the interests of other members of the public who may choose to reside at this premises.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5251822 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 1, 25 Sefton Street, Seaview, Timaru 7910

Tenancy Tribunal case 5251822 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 1, 25 Sefton Street, Seaview, Timaru 7910

Order

RTA

Reasons

What is owing for rent?

Was there a breach of s 19 of the RTA?

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages for its breach of s 19 of the RTA?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Order

RTA

Reasons

What is owing for rent?

Was there a breach of s 19 of the RTA?

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages for its breach of s 19 of the RTA?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?