What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5259560 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5259560?

Compensation: $503.20 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $3,270.86 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,078.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259560?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259560?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12470868-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5259560 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5259560?

Compensation: $503.20 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $3,270.86 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,078.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259560?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259560?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12470868-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5259560 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5259560 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5259560 — net $804.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 May 2025	$6,078.57		Rent arrears to 24 May 2025
Door repairs to remove additional locks	$500.00		Door repairs to remove additional locks
Compensation for overpaid water		$503.20	Compensation for overpaid water
Compensation for no qualifying heater at 5% 27/05/23		$3,270.86	Compensation for no qualifying heater at 5% 27/05/23
Exemplary damages for breach of HHS		$2,000.00	Exemplary damages for breach of HHS
Total award	$6,578.57	$5,774.06
Net award	$804.51
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$804.51

Claims and awards for application 5259560 — net $804.51 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 24 May 2025

Amount: $6,078.57
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 24 May 2025

Door repairs to remove additional locks

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Door repairs to remove additional locks

Compensation for overpaid water

Amount: $503.20
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation for overpaid water

Compensation for no qualifying heater at 5% 27/05/23

Amount: $3,270.86
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation for no qualifying heater at 5% 27/05/23

Exemplary damages for breach of HHS

Amount: $2,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Property damage Rent arrears

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
[The tenant] must pay [the landlord] $804.51 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 (5658626-006) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord]: $804.51 [The tenant]: $2,229.77
The claims are allowed as set out in this order all other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Introduction and summary

Both parties attended the hearing. 1
The landlord was assisted by a support person.
The tenant claims the landlord did not comply with her Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) 2 duty to provide a qualifying heater and failed to maintain the premises in respect to leaking ceilings.
The landlord applies for rent arrears, compensation for damage to the premises and for the garden not being left reasonably tidy, reimbursement of the filing fee, and payment from the bond following the end of the tenancy.
I have found that the landlord failed to comply with her HHS obligations in respect to the heating standard. Orders for compensation and exemplary damages are made for that. The tenant did not prove that the landlord failed to maintain the premises. That claim is dismissed.
The landlord proved the rent arrears. She volunteered that she owed the tenant for overpaid water. The landlord proved that the tenant had damaged two bedroom doors. Compensation is ordered for that. The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.
The tenant proved that the landlord was in breach of the HHS duty to provide a qualifying fixed heater. The Tribunal orders compensation for loss of amenity and exemplary damages for that.
The tenants other claims were not proved, and they are dismissed.
In consequence, the tenant must pay the landlord $804.51 from the bond. Background
The tenancy began on 27 January 2023 and ended on 24 May 2025.
Before the tenancy began the landlord and the tenant agreed that the landlord did not have to meet her HHS obligation to provide a qualifying heater. The tenancy agreement recorded: -note – No heat pump. Put the heat pump when landlord can afford – agreed by the tenants
The landlord eventually installed a heat pump on 21 February 2025.
Towards the end of the tenancy, the tenant fell into rent arrears. The landlord, however, was overcharging the tenant for water because she was charging him for the fixed water charges, which are a landlord expense. 1 Jay Fu, a Mandarin interpreter assisted the tenant. Jennifer Kim, a Korean interpreter, assisted the landlord. 2 See the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
During the tenancy, the tenant installed additional door handles and locks on two bedroom doors.
I set out my reasons for my findings by considering each of the party’s claims in turn, beginning with the landlord’s claims first.

What does the tenant owe the landlord for unpaid rent?

The tenancy ended on 24 May 2025. The landlord provided rent records which proved to my satisfaction that (prior to considering the tenant’s claim) the tenant owes the landlord $6,078.57 for unpaid rent. What does the landlord owe the tenant for overpaid water
During the tenancy, the landlord charged the tenant for the fixed water charges. However, the landlord is responsible for those. The landlord helpfully provided a calculation of the overpayment, which I accept.
Consequently, the Tribunal will order the landlord to repay the tenant $503.20 for the overpayment.

Did the tenant fail to leave the lawns and garden reasonably tidy?

The landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the lawns and garden reasonably tidy.
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy when the tenancy ends. 3
The landlord provided photographs that show the lawn was unmown and the garden was unkempt. However, the tenant claims he had a contractor mow the lawns and tidy the garden on 24 May 2025, the last day of the tenancy.
The landlord’s photographs were taken on 10 May 2025, about two weeks before the tenancy ended. Therefore, the landlord’s photographs cannot rebut the tenant’s claim that he left the lawns mowed and the garden tidy. Nor did the landlord produce any photographs showing the condition the garden and lawns were in immediately before the tenancy began. That being so, there is no basis for comparison to assess whether the lawns and garden were in a worse state of tidiness than at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord has not proven her claim on the balance of probabilities. It is dismissed.

Is the tenant liable for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims the tenant damaged two of the bedroom doors by adding door locks to them, damaged a laundry door by removing it which exposed it to water damage, cut holes in a security screen’s mosquito netting, and cut the security alarm’s cables. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 40(1)(e)(iii).
To succeed in a claim for tenant damage, the 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. 4 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. 5
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. 6
During the tenancy, the tenant installed additional levers with locks to two bedroom doors. Rather than replace the existing levers, he just added the new mechanisms. These doors were given mismatched doorknobs, which look unappealing.
The tenant claims the landlord agreed to the work. However, the landlord disputes that she agreed. I find it more likely than not that the landlord did not agree to the new locks. It is unusual to have locks on bedroom doors and even more unusual to have bedroom doors that have two separate mechanisms like this.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord submitted a quote dated 14 June 2025 from a handyman for the cost repairing the doors, the security screen door, the sliding door, and painting totalling $945.50. The quote is not itemised. However, I consider that $500.00 is an appropriate figure to order for the repair of the doors to a more acceptable state.
The tenant says he took the sliding laundry door off its rails only because it got stuck. He told the landlord what he had done and why. The landlord could have but did not fix the door. The landlord claims the tenant also removed the door’s bottom slider. However, she could not provide photographs to prove that and nor did her photographs show the state of the door before the tenancy began. Moreover, the tenant had told her that that the door was not working properly, so it was her duty to repair it under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord claimed the tenant had cut holes in a security door’s wire mesh. She produced a photograph showing the screen door was damaged as she claimed. However, the tenant denied that he had cut any holes in the mesh or that the holes had occurred during the tenancy. The landlord could not produce photographs showing the screen door’s condition at the beginning of the tenancy, so I could not weigh whether the door was damaged during the tenancy by reference to objective evidence. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage occurred during the tenancy. 4 RTA ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 5 RTA s 49B(1). 6 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541
The landlord claimed the tenant had cut the alarm system’s wiring. However, the tenant denied touching the alarm system and indeed professed ignorance that it even existed. The landlord did not provide objective evidence to show the condition of the alarm system at the beginning of the tenancy and at its end. Her only evidence was her own claim that the security system was no longer working. In the absence of independent evidence I am unpersuaded that the tenant damaged the security system.
The Tribunal orders the tenant to pay the landlord $500.00 to repair the damage to the bedroom doors. The landlord’s other damage claims are dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS heating standard?

The landlord was well aware of that the HHS required the premises to have a heat pump or another qualifying heater. However, rather that comply with the standard, she contracted with the tenant did install a heat pump once she could afford it.
Landlords cannot generally contract out of the obligations. 7
It follows that the landlord has breached her duties under s 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 by failing to comply with the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For private rentals 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.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater is and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS. Open fireplaces are one of the types of heaters that are an unacceptable heat source.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 8 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 of the RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA states that exemplary damages may be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and it is just to do so having regard to: 7 See RTA s 11. 8 RTA s 45(1A). a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c.The interests of the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest.
I am satisfied the breach was intentional. To her credit, the landlord did finally install a heat pump on 20 February 2025.The tenant would have had to have gotten his own heaters to warm the premises or to suffer being colder than he would otherwise have been. It is likely that his power bill would have been higher using plug-in heaters than for a heat pump. It is in the tenants’ interests to recognise the unlawful act by awarding exemplary damages. It is in the public interest that landlords are deterred from this kind of conduct. I consider it is just to make an award in this case.
In all the circumstances, I set exemplary damages at $2,000.00.
I also order compensation for loss of amenity and probably increased power costs assessed at the rate of 5 percent for the relevant period that the premises did not have a qualifying heater.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

[The tenant] claims that the landlord has breached her obligations to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair by failing to remedy leaks into the ceilings. Legal principles
Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1969 (RTA), landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) ... (b) 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...
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 9 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair... 10 9 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. 10 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is, I think, 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...”
Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repair. 11 However, Landlords also have an obligation to repair disrepair that is apparent from observation: 12 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation... Discussion
[The tenant] submitted photographs which showed apparent mould and moisture damage on several of the house’s ceilings. [The landlord] considered the photographs were doctored and submitted that any mould in the premises was not due to leaks but due to [the tenant] not adequately ventilating the house by regularly opening the windows.
[The tenant] could not produce any texts or emails to prove that he had complained to the landlord about any leaks during the tenancy. He sent [the landlord] a copy of the photographs he submitted in evidence but that was not until after the tenancy had ended.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the ceilings were affected by leaking. The photographs do show mould, but mould can be caused by poor ventilation, and they photographs do not show water dripping or even present. I agree with [the landlord’s] submission that leaking is a serious issue. It is unlikely that a tenant would not report such a serious matter and would not resort to communication in writing if the landlord did not remedy the problem. [The tenant] claimed to have told the landlord about leaks on the phone. However, if he had done so you would have expected the landlord to have responded in some way. Usually landlords repair leaks that they are aware of because water ingress into houses is destructive and stemming the leak will be less expensive than repairing rotten building elements. One would expect there to have been some contemporaneous evidence such as written communications about leaks if there were any.
[The landlord] says she has done nothing to fix any leaks because there are none. She has re-tenanted the house and had evidence from the new tenants that they are very content with the house’s condition. Conclusion
In summary, there is a lack of evidence that the house was leaking. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it was. The tenant’s claim is therefore dismissed. 11 RTA, s 40(1)(d). 12 See n 9. Filing fees
I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fees because both parties have been successful in their claims. Bond
The Tribunal directs the Bond Centre to distribute the bond in accordance with this order. Non-publication
The parties seek non-publication of their names 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.
Both parties substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I had considered not granting the landlord non-publication because of the nature of the HHS breach. However, it does not appear she has appeared before the Tribunal before. This decision will be a salutary lesson to comply with the Act in future. That being so, for the landlord and the tenant I do not consider that the public interest or the parties’ conduct is such that non- publication should be refused.
Non-publication is granted.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5259560 — net $804.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 May 2025	$6,078.57		Rent arrears to 24 May 2025
Door repairs to remove additional locks	$500.00		Door repairs to remove additional locks
Compensation for overpaid water		$503.20	Compensation for overpaid water
Compensation for no qualifying heater at 5% 27/05/23		$3,270.86	Compensation for no qualifying heater at 5% 27/05/23
Exemplary damages for breach of HHS		$2,000.00	Exemplary damages for breach of HHS
Total award	$6,578.57	$5,774.06
Net award	$804.51
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$804.51

Claims and awards for application 5259560 — net $804.51 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 24 May 2025

Amount: $6,078.57
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 24 May 2025

Door repairs to remove additional locks

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Door repairs to remove additional locks

Compensation for overpaid water

Amount: $503.20
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation for overpaid water

Compensation for no qualifying heater at 5% 27/05/23

Amount: $3,270.86
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation for no qualifying heater at 5% 27/05/23

Exemplary damages for breach of HHS

Amount: $2,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Property damage Rent arrears

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
[The tenant] must pay [the landlord] $804.51 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 (5658626-006) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord]: $804.51 [The tenant]: $2,229.77
The claims are allowed as set out in this order all other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Introduction and summary

Both parties attended the hearing. 1
The landlord was assisted by a support person.
The tenant claims the landlord did not comply with her Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) 2 duty to provide a qualifying heater and failed to maintain the premises in respect to leaking ceilings.
The landlord applies for rent arrears, compensation for damage to the premises and for the garden not being left reasonably tidy, reimbursement of the filing fee, and payment from the bond following the end of the tenancy.
I have found that the landlord failed to comply with her HHS obligations in respect to the heating standard. Orders for compensation and exemplary damages are made for that. The tenant did not prove that the landlord failed to maintain the premises. That claim is dismissed.
The landlord proved the rent arrears. She volunteered that she owed the tenant for overpaid water. The landlord proved that the tenant had damaged two bedroom doors. Compensation is ordered for that. The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.
The tenant proved that the landlord was in breach of the HHS duty to provide a qualifying fixed heater. The Tribunal orders compensation for loss of amenity and exemplary damages for that.
The tenants other claims were not proved, and they are dismissed.
In consequence, the tenant must pay the landlord $804.51 from the bond. Background
The tenancy began on 27 January 2023 and ended on 24 May 2025.
Before the tenancy began the landlord and the tenant agreed that the landlord did not have to meet her HHS obligation to provide a qualifying heater. The tenancy agreement recorded: -note – No heat pump. Put the heat pump when landlord can afford – agreed by the tenants
The landlord eventually installed a heat pump on 21 February 2025.
Towards the end of the tenancy, the tenant fell into rent arrears. The landlord, however, was overcharging the tenant for water because she was charging him for the fixed water charges, which are a landlord expense. 1 Jay Fu, a Mandarin interpreter assisted the tenant. Jennifer Kim, a Korean interpreter, assisted the landlord. 2 See the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
During the tenancy, the tenant installed additional door handles and locks on two bedroom doors.
I set out my reasons for my findings by considering each of the party’s claims in turn, beginning with the landlord’s claims first.

What does the tenant owe the landlord for unpaid rent?

The tenancy ended on 24 May 2025. The landlord provided rent records which proved to my satisfaction that (prior to considering the tenant’s claim) the tenant owes the landlord $6,078.57 for unpaid rent. What does the landlord owe the tenant for overpaid water
During the tenancy, the landlord charged the tenant for the fixed water charges. However, the landlord is responsible for those. The landlord helpfully provided a calculation of the overpayment, which I accept.
Consequently, the Tribunal will order the landlord to repay the tenant $503.20 for the overpayment.

Did the tenant fail to leave the lawns and garden reasonably tidy?

The landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the lawns and garden reasonably tidy.
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy when the tenancy ends. 3
The landlord provided photographs that show the lawn was unmown and the garden was unkempt. However, the tenant claims he had a contractor mow the lawns and tidy the garden on 24 May 2025, the last day of the tenancy.
The landlord’s photographs were taken on 10 May 2025, about two weeks before the tenancy ended. Therefore, the landlord’s photographs cannot rebut the tenant’s claim that he left the lawns mowed and the garden tidy. Nor did the landlord produce any photographs showing the condition the garden and lawns were in immediately before the tenancy began. That being so, there is no basis for comparison to assess whether the lawns and garden were in a worse state of tidiness than at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord has not proven her claim on the balance of probabilities. It is dismissed.

Is the tenant liable for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims the tenant damaged two of the bedroom doors by adding door locks to them, damaged a laundry door by removing it which exposed it to water damage, cut holes in a security screen’s mosquito netting, and cut the security alarm’s cables. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 40(1)(e)(iii).
To succeed in a claim for tenant damage, the 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. 4 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. 5
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. 6
During the tenancy, the tenant installed additional levers with locks to two bedroom doors. Rather than replace the existing levers, he just added the new mechanisms. These doors were given mismatched doorknobs, which look unappealing.
The tenant claims the landlord agreed to the work. However, the landlord disputes that she agreed. I find it more likely than not that the landlord did not agree to the new locks. It is unusual to have locks on bedroom doors and even more unusual to have bedroom doors that have two separate mechanisms like this.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord submitted a quote dated 14 June 2025 from a handyman for the cost repairing the doors, the security screen door, the sliding door, and painting totalling $945.50. The quote is not itemised. However, I consider that $500.00 is an appropriate figure to order for the repair of the doors to a more acceptable state.
The tenant says he took the sliding laundry door off its rails only because it got stuck. He told the landlord what he had done and why. The landlord could have but did not fix the door. The landlord claims the tenant also removed the door’s bottom slider. However, she could not provide photographs to prove that and nor did her photographs show the state of the door before the tenancy began. Moreover, the tenant had told her that that the door was not working properly, so it was her duty to repair it under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord claimed the tenant had cut holes in a security door’s wire mesh. She produced a photograph showing the screen door was damaged as she claimed. However, the tenant denied that he had cut any holes in the mesh or that the holes had occurred during the tenancy. The landlord could not produce photographs showing the screen door’s condition at the beginning of the tenancy, so I could not weigh whether the door was damaged during the tenancy by reference to objective evidence. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage occurred during the tenancy. 4 RTA ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 5 RTA s 49B(1). 6 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541
The landlord claimed the tenant had cut the alarm system’s wiring. However, the tenant denied touching the alarm system and indeed professed ignorance that it even existed. The landlord did not provide objective evidence to show the condition of the alarm system at the beginning of the tenancy and at its end. Her only evidence was her own claim that the security system was no longer working. In the absence of independent evidence I am unpersuaded that the tenant damaged the security system.
The Tribunal orders the tenant to pay the landlord $500.00 to repair the damage to the bedroom doors. The landlord’s other damage claims are dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS heating standard?

The landlord was well aware of that the HHS required the premises to have a heat pump or another qualifying heater. However, rather that comply with the standard, she contracted with the tenant did install a heat pump once she could afford it.
Landlords cannot generally contract out of the obligations. 7
It follows that the landlord has breached her duties under s 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 by failing to comply with the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For private rentals 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.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater is and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS. Open fireplaces are one of the types of heaters that are an unacceptable heat source.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 8 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 of the RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA states that exemplary damages may be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and it is just to do so having regard to: 7 See RTA s 11. 8 RTA s 45(1A). a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c.The interests of the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest.
I am satisfied the breach was intentional. To her credit, the landlord did finally install a heat pump on 20 February 2025.The tenant would have had to have gotten his own heaters to warm the premises or to suffer being colder than he would otherwise have been. It is likely that his power bill would have been higher using plug-in heaters than for a heat pump. It is in the tenants’ interests to recognise the unlawful act by awarding exemplary damages. It is in the public interest that landlords are deterred from this kind of conduct. I consider it is just to make an award in this case.
In all the circumstances, I set exemplary damages at $2,000.00.
I also order compensation for loss of amenity and probably increased power costs assessed at the rate of 5 percent for the relevant period that the premises did not have a qualifying heater.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

[The tenant] claims that the landlord has breached her obligations to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair by failing to remedy leaks into the ceilings. Legal principles
Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1969 (RTA), landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) ... (b) 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...
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 9 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair... 10 9 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. 10 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is, I think, 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...”
Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repair. 11 However, Landlords also have an obligation to repair disrepair that is apparent from observation: 12 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation... Discussion
[The tenant] submitted photographs which showed apparent mould and moisture damage on several of the house’s ceilings. [The landlord] considered the photographs were doctored and submitted that any mould in the premises was not due to leaks but due to [the tenant] not adequately ventilating the house by regularly opening the windows.
[The tenant] could not produce any texts or emails to prove that he had complained to the landlord about any leaks during the tenancy. He sent [the landlord] a copy of the photographs he submitted in evidence but that was not until after the tenancy had ended.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the ceilings were affected by leaking. The photographs do show mould, but mould can be caused by poor ventilation, and they photographs do not show water dripping or even present. I agree with [the landlord’s] submission that leaking is a serious issue. It is unlikely that a tenant would not report such a serious matter and would not resort to communication in writing if the landlord did not remedy the problem. [The tenant] claimed to have told the landlord about leaks on the phone. However, if he had done so you would have expected the landlord to have responded in some way. Usually landlords repair leaks that they are aware of because water ingress into houses is destructive and stemming the leak will be less expensive than repairing rotten building elements. One would expect there to have been some contemporaneous evidence such as written communications about leaks if there were any.
[The landlord] says she has done nothing to fix any leaks because there are none. She has re-tenanted the house and had evidence from the new tenants that they are very content with the house’s condition. Conclusion
In summary, there is a lack of evidence that the house was leaking. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it was. The tenant’s claim is therefore dismissed. 11 RTA, s 40(1)(d). 12 See n 9. Filing fees
I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fees because both parties have been successful in their claims. Bond
The Tribunal directs the Bond Centre to distribute the bond in accordance with this order. Non-publication
The parties seek non-publication of their names 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.
Both parties substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I had considered not granting the landlord non-publication because of the nature of the HHS breach. However, it does not appear she has appeared before the Tribunal before. This decision will be a salutary lesson to comply with the Act in future. That being so, for the landlord and the tenant I do not consider that the public interest or the parties’ conduct is such that non- publication should be refused.
Non-publication is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5259560 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5259560 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

What does the tenant owe the landlord for unpaid rent?

Did the tenant fail to leave the lawns and garden reasonably tidy?

Is the tenant liable for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS heating standard?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

What does the tenant owe the landlord for unpaid rent?

Did the tenant fail to leave the lawns and garden reasonably tidy?

Is the tenant liable for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS heating standard?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions