How much money was awarded in case 5259999?

Compensation: Rent Refund: $2,228.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259999?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259999?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12839341-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5259999?

Compensation: Rent Refund: $2,228.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259999?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259999?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12839341-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

244B Te Mata Road, Raglan, Raglan 3295 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5259999 — Healthy homes

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5259999 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5259999 — net $6,355.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: rent refund	$2,228.57	rent refund
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge the bond	$500.00	failure to lodge the bond
Exemplary damages: breach of Building Act 2004 and of the Healthy Homes Standards	$3,600.00	breach of Building Act 2004 and of the Healthy Homes Standards
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,355.57
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,355.57

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

The cabin at the tenancy address is an unlawful residential premises and does not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.

Roger Craig Woolston must pay [The tenant/s] $6,355.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

[The tenant/s] (tenant) and Roger Woolston (landlord) have attended several hearings, all held remotely.

Both parties have made applications to the Tribunal about a tenancy of a cabin at the tenancy address (“the cabin”).

The tenant has applied for the refund of his bond and of all rent paid during the tenancy. He also seeks compensation and/or exemplary damages (which are like a fine or penalty).

The tenant alleges:- a. The bond was not lodged. b. There were maintenance problems with a roof leak and shower flooding, “see-through walls” and rat faeces. c. The cabin does not comply with Healthy Homes Standards. d. The cabin is not suitable for human habitation. This is an allegation the premises are unlawful and should not be rented out.

The landlord has applied for:- a. Rent owing of $720.00; b. Compensation for damage to a couch of $300.00; c. Compensation for cleaning costs/time of $1,120.00; d. Compensation for storage costs of $660.00; e. An order to dispose of the tenant’s belongings (estimated value $250.00).

I made an order on 16 July 2025 (after an initial case conference) outlining sections of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) that could apply in these proceedings and information as to what could be considered.

This first order specifically informed the parties that either of them could present evidence about whether the cabin was lawfully able to be lived in as a separate dwelling. This could include documents/statements/reports from the relevant council or tradespeople such as compliance certificates, building consents and resource consents.

I made an order on 20 August 2025 requiring the landlord to lodge the bond of $960.00 and he did so (on 21 August 2025).

I made an order on 5 November 2025 refunding the bond to the tenant. This was to facilitate the tenant being able to pay for the collection and delivery of his belongings from the tenancy address. The landlord promised to pay part of these costs and have any payment taken into account in this final order, but he has not done so. Background

The tenancy started on about 19 October 2024 after the tenant posted a comment on social media asking if anyone in the local area had accommodation available. The landlord replied and the tenant moved in.

The tenancy premises are a 10 square metre cabin and separate auxiliary bathroom and kitchen unit at the address. The landlord and his family live at the same address in the main house.

The landlord says the tenant arranged the tenancy documentation. Both parties signed a tenancy agreement recording their names and contact details, weekly rent of $240.00, a bond of $960.00, 1 and a start date of 19 October 2024.

Things started happily, and the tenant got on well with the landlord and his family. However, problems arose and in April and May 2025 both parties had been in contact with the police with their concerns about each other.

The evidence leading up to the ending of the tenancy is sketchy and not directly relevant to the issues I must decide. For that reason, I do not make any findings about that time.

The landlord and tenant have said there are other buildings at the address, but no specific details or photographs have been provided.

The tenant applied to the Tribunal on 6 May 2025 and the landlord made his application on 18 August 2025, after the first case conference had been held. The law on landlord obligations

A landlord has legal obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

These include to lodge the bond within 23 working days of receiving it (section 19 RTA) and maintenance and compliance obligations in section 45 RTA to:- a. provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; b. comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016; c. comply with the Healthy Homes Standards 2 within 120 days of any tenancy that starts after 27 August 2022; d. comply with any relevant laws in relation to buildings, health and safety. This includes the Building Act 2004, Resource Management Act 2003 and associated District Plans, and regulatory legislation relating to electrical, plumbing and other work.

All the above obligations apply even if a tenant knows the state of the premises at the time that the tenancy is entered into; see s45(3) RTA. 1 The bond amount is hard to read and looks like it could be “$860” but both parties agree it is $960.00. 2 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00 for not lodging a bond and $7,200.00 for the other duties. See Schedule 1A RTA. The law on unlawful residential premises

The cabin might be unlawful for living in as separate residential premises.

Section 78A RTA authorises the Tenancy Tribunal to make a range of orders if the evidence establishes that the premises, are, or were at any material time, “unlawful residential premises”.

Premises are unlawful if they cannot lawfully be occupied for the purpose for which they have been rented out 3 and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation. 4 See section 78A(2) RTA.

Where the Tribunal decides that premises are unlawful:- a. it must not order the tenant to pay any amount owing as rent in arrears or as compensation unless there are special circumstances that mean it would be unjust not to do so; s78A(3) RTA, and b. the Tribunal may order the landlord to refund all of part of the rent paid by the tenant and may also award exemplary damages; s78A(4) RTA. The law on tenant obligations

A tenant must pay rent when it is due and notify the landlord of any damage or the need for repairs. When the tenancy ends, a tenant must leave premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return keys, remove all of their goods/belongings and leave behind the landlord’s chattels; s40(1) RTA.

A tenant is liable to compensate the landlord for loss caused by careless or intentional damage to the premises. The most a tenant is liable for if damage is careless, is the amount of the insurance excess or four weeks' market rent (whichever is less). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. Decisions on the claims

I now consider each of the claims. 3 “... cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes by that person (whether generally or whether for the particular residential purposes for which that person is granted occupation)”; s78A(2)(a) RTA. 4 “... where the landlord’s failure to comply with the landlord’s obligations under section 36 or 45(1)(c), or section 66H(2)(c) or 66I(1)(c), as relevant, has caused the occupation by that person to be unlawful or has contributed to that unlawful occupation”; s78A(2)(b) RTA.

Is the cabin an unlawful residential premises?

The foundational issue is whether the cabin could be lawfully rented out as separate residential premises. The answer to this question will affect the outcome of some of the other applications.

The landlord told me in the case conference on 16 July 2025 that there are no council consents for the cabin. He says the cabin rented by the tenant is made up of one 10sqm cabin with another auxiliary bathroom and shower cabin adjacent to it. The landlord mentioned the possibility of the cabin being exempt from the need for a building consent in the hearing but did not make specific submissions on this.

Photographs supplied by both parties give an idea of the facilities and layout of the cabin. These show:- a. a small, carpeted room (bedroom) with gib-board lined walls and ceiling and a window; b. a tiled and lined bathroom with toilet, vanity sink and shower and two windows; c. a kitchen and living area (which the parties described as a covered deck connecting the bedroom and bathroom) with walls (it is unclear what these are made of but have the appearance of wood panelling), windows with aluminium joinery, and a flat, unlined roof made of corrugated iron (partial) and corrugated plastic (partial). The roofing support beams sit directly above the windows. Daylight is visible in the valleys in the corrugation of the roofing material: in other words, the roof/ceiling is not sealed from the outside; d. the kitchen contains a stainless-steel sink, benchtop, gas hob, and under bench fridge; e. the exterior appears to be corrugated iron cladding on the bedroom and bathroom sections and wooden panelling on the connecting living areas; f. there are no eaves, guttering or downpipes visible.

The landlord and tenant also supplied diagrams. The landlord’s plan says the cabin is 16sqm size in total. This has not been verified.

The Building Act 2004 applies to all buildings whether temporary, permanent, or relocatable and includes any two or more buildings that are intended to be managed as one building with a common use; section 8 Building Act 2004.

All building work (construction, alteration, demolition, or removal) must comply with the Building Code 5 (the rules for building work to ensure buildings are safe, healthy and durable) and a building consent is often needed.

Building work that is considered low-risk is exempt from needing a building consent in certain circumstances. 6

It is an offence to carry out building work that is not exempt and does not have a consent and, on conviction, a person may be liable for a fine of up to $200,000.00; s40 Building Act 2004.

In addition to Building Act requirements, the Waikato District Plan applies. I have not considered the District Plan provisions in this decision as no evidence was provided to enable me to do so.

Specific laws also apply to certain electrical, plumbing and drainage, and gas fixture work. a. All prescribed electrical work must be done by a licensed electrician; section 74 of the Electricity Act 1992. b. Fixing and unfixing plumbing pipes and fixtures must be done by registered plumbers or, if not registered, supervised by a certifying plumber. 7 c. Installing, altering or repairing underground drainage pipes which carry wastewater or stormwater to an onsite or mains sewer or stormwater must be done by a certifying or licensed drainlayer. 8 d. The installation, alteration and repair of gas appliances must be undertaken by registered gasfitters or, if not registered, supervised by a certifying gasfitter. 9

Neither the landlord nor the tenant referred me to specific building or other regulatory laws and whether these had, or had not, been breached by the landlord. Neither did either party present any evidence from the building consent and territorial authority responsible for building and resource management consents in the region where the tenancy premises is located. This is the Waikato District Council.

In the absence of expert evidence from a builder or council building inspector, I do not make findings as to whether the cabin complies with the Building Code. I do note that:- 5 Building Regulations 1992. 6 The exemptions are in Schedule 1 of the Building Act 2004. 7 See guidance on Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board website at www.pgdb.co.nz/advice_for_consumers. Governed by Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers 2006 and Regulations. 8 As above at footnote 7. 9 As above at footnote 7. a. the plastic corrugated part of the roof over the living area may not be sufficiently durable to comply with clause B2.3.1 of the Building Code which requires building materials used as part of the building envelope to last at least 15 years; b. the iron and plastic corrugated roofing over the living area of the cabin does not prevent rain and moisture entering the cabin. Clause E2.2 of the Building Code says buildings must be constructed to provide adequate resistance to penetration by, and the accumulation of moisture from the outside; c. the apparent absence of eaves and guttering would probably also fail to keep moisture out (clause E2.2) and not satisfy clause E1.3.3 which requires drainage systems for the disposal of surface water.

I also note there was no evidence provided by either party as to fire protection (building materials, smoke alarms, escape routes etc) or as to sanitary drainage and stormwater disposal.

I have considered the evidence as a whole and the provisions of the Building Act 2004 in their plain meaning (without expert evidence). My decision is that the tenancy cabin is unlawful residential premises because:- a. it could not be lawfully occupied by the tenant because it was built by the landlord without a building consent when one was required; and b. the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation because he did, or authorised, the work to build the cabin.

The evidence that supports this decision is:- a. The cabin is a detached, single-level building of more than 10 and less than 30 square metres (sqm) in floor area. It should not be treated as two separate cabins of less than 10 sqm with a connecting deck because it is managed as one building with one use. b. The cabin contains sanitary facilities (bathroom and kitchen sinks, toilet, shower) so is not exempt from requiring building consent. Clauses 3 and 3A of the exemptions schedule exempt single-storey, detached buildings of less than 10sqm or between 10 and 30 sqm, only if they do not contain sanitary facilities. 10 c. A cabin used for sleeping accommodation may be exempt from requiring a building consent but only if “the building is used in connection with a dwelling and does not contain any cooking facilities”; clause 3(1)(d) and 3A(1)(e) Schedule 1 Building Act 2004. The tenancy cabin was not used in connection with the main dwelling (the tenant rented the cabin as separate 10 Schedule 1 of the Building Act 2004. premises and lived separately from the landlord and his family) and contains cooking facilities. d. The landlord told me in the hearings that he and other friends and acquaintances built the cabin.

The landlord did supply electrical, plumbing, and gas compliance documents from a gas fitter, electrician and plumber. The landlord’s evidence is that these documents relate to work in the cabin (prescribed work). The tenant questioned whether this was the case, so I heard telephone evidence from the gas fitter and the electrician in the hearing on 16 October 2025.

There are several buildings at the tenancy address including the landlord’s house, the tenancy cabin, and a large shed. It was difficult for the tradespeople to orally describe or identify the location of the work they were certifying. I asked them to email photographs of their work. I received a photo from the gas fitter only.

The tenant did not challenge the gas-fitter’s photograph, so I accept that the gas hob in the cabin was installed on 5 March 2023 by a certifying gasfitter.

The electrician told me the main power source into the cabin is by way of a caravan outlet. His electrical certificate of compliance says 10 power points, 6 lights and a caravan outlet were installed into a “unit” in May 2018.

A plumbers Producer Statement dated 5/6/2018 certifies that “installation of hot and cold water and wastes to sanitary fixtures in cabin” have been completed in accordance with the Building Code.

I am not certain that the plumbing and electrical work covered in the above certificates related to work done in the tenancy cabin. However, the tenant did not supply any evidence to support his view that they do not.

I have decided that I am satisfied that it is more probable than not that the plumbing, gasfitting, and electrical work in the cabin was done by properly licensed tradespeople and therefore that this work complies with the Building Code and any other relevant regulations for those types of work.

In summary:- a. The landlord has committed an unlawful act by not complying with all building laws being the requirement to obtain a building consent for the work to build the cabin/s and the work to install sanitary fixtures and cooking facilities in the cabin; section 45(1)(c) RTA. b. I am satisfied it is more probable than not that the electrical, plumbing and gas-fitting work in the cabin complies with the Building Code.

The tenant seeks a refund of all rent paid because the cabin is an unlawful premises. I consider this at the end of this decision.

Did the cabin comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenant says in his application that the Healthy Homes Standards were “not met” but did not provide any other specific evidence.

Privately owned rental properties must comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) within 90 days of any new, or renewed, tenancy that commences on a date between 1 July 2021 and 27 August 2022 and within 120 days if the tenancy commences on a date on or between 28 August 2022 and 2 March 2025.

The HHS are specific requirements for heating in the main living area, ceiling and underfloor insulation, ventilation from windows and bathroom and kitchen extractor fans, draught stopping, an efficient drainage system and a moisture prevention barrier under the house. 11

This tenancy started on 19 October 2024. The HHS compliance date is 120 days after this which is 16 February 2025.

The landlord did not fill in the compulsory HHS, insulation or insurance compliance statements in the tenancy agreement. These are all blank and unsigned which is a breach of s13A(1A),(1CA) and (2) RTA.

The landlord said there was a heater provided and an extractor fan in the bathroom but gave no information as to their specifications.

My decisions are:- a. There was no ceiling insulation in the central living area (covered deck) of the cabin. This is obvious from the photos that show the single layer of corrugated roofing which means there is no roof cavity. This is a breach of the insulation HHS. 12 Ceiling and underfloor insulation has been required in all tenancy premises since 1 July 2019. 13 b. There is no kitchen extractor fan which is clear from the photos and was confirmed by the landlord in the hearing. This is a breach of the ventilation HHS. 14 11 Each of the Standards has specifications that must be met. For example, heating must be capable of maintaining a temperature in that room of 18° Celsius, be fixed and of at least 1.5 kW, with a thermostat (if an electric heater or heat pump). Unacceptable heaters are an open fire, an unflued combustion heater, or an electric heater if the required heating capacity is greater than 2.4 kW. Kitchen extractor fan ducting must be a minimum of 150mm or an exhaust capacity of 50 litres per second, bathroom of 120mm or 25 litres per second and duct to the outside. 12 Regulation 13, Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. 13 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. 14 Regulation 23, Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. c. The living area and kitchen of the cabin have unreasonable gaps that allow draughts through the valleys in the corrugated roofing which are open to the outside. This is a breach of the draught stopping HHS. 15 d. There is insufficient evidence to prove a breach of any of the other HHS. This is the tenant’s claim so he must provide enough evidence to raise the likelihood of a breach which then puts the landlord on notice to provide any evidence of compliance. The tenant did not provide photos of the underfloor (in regard to insulation or waterproof membrane), type or capacity of heating, bathroom extractor fan, drainage or guttering so it is not proven that these do not comply with the relevant HHS.

The landlord has committed an unlawful act by not complying with all HHS by 16 February 2025. This is a breach of section 45(1)(bb) RTA.

I consider compensation and exemplary damages at the end of this decision. Maintenance

The tenant’s application alleges there were maintenance problems with a roof leak and shower flooding, “see-through walls” and rat faeces.

The tenant must provide enough evidence to prove his claims.

The photos establish the roof in the living area was not watertight as it is made of corrugated iron and plastic that is not sealed from the outside. To this extent, I accept moisture could have entered the premises but there was no specific evidence of a “leak” or of damage to the tenant’s belongings.

There was no evidence to show shower flooding, “see-through walls” or “rat faeces”. One photo shows a few mouse droppings. These are not significant.

I dismiss these claims. Lodgement of the bond

The tenant has applied for exemplary damages alleging the landlord did not lodge the bond as required by the RTA.

This claim was heard at the hearing on 20 August 2025 and the landlord acknowledged he did not lodge the bond of $960.00 which he received from the tenant on 11 December 2024.

This is a breach of section 19 RTA which requires bond money to be lodged within 23 working days after any payment is made. 15 Regulation 26, Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.

The Tribunal can award exemplary damages if the breach is intentional and after considering the intent and effect and the public interest; s109 RTA.

The landlord’s decision to not lodge the bond was intentional. The legal requirement is mandatory.

I now consider the factors in section 109 RTA: a. Intent: The landlord said the reason he did not lodge the bond was because the tenant missed four weeks of rent payments soon after the landlord had received the bond. The rent ledger and the tenant’s bank records show the tenant did not pay rent from 18 December 2024 until 15 January 2025. However, the rent ledger also shows the tenant had paid four weeks’ rent in advance on the first day of the tenancy. This means the tenant did not owe rent until 12 January 2025. His next payment was on 16 January 2025. The landlord was incorrect to think that the tenant was four weeks’ behind in rent. Even if he had been correct, a landlord cannot simply decide to not lodge a bond and keep it. The proper processes must be followed. b. The effect of the landlord not lodging the bond was that the tenant’s money was not held securely at the Bond Centre and the landlord could use it as he chose. The landlord says that the tenant authorised him to use the bond for later missed payments. This was not until near the end of the tenancy on 28 April 2025 when the tenant advised that he would be moving out. The tenant expected that his bond was safely lodged at the Bond Centre when he said this. c. The interests of a tenant are that their bond money is secure and cannot be released to a landlord without the tenant’s consent or an order of the Tribunal. d. There is a public interest in fining a landlord who intentionally does not lodge a bond. The landlord did lodge the bond of $960.00 at the Bond Centre on 21 August 2025 after I made an order requiring him to do so.

I award $500.00 which is one-third of the maximum. Rent

The landlord claims there is rent owing.

Both the landlord and tenant agree that the tenant vacated on 12 May 2025. The tenant sent a text on 28 April 2025 telling the landlord he was moving out.

The landlord has supplied a record of rent payments. This shows the tenant paid a total of $5,760.00 in rent and $960.00 as bond.

The tenancy was 29 weeks and 3 days long. The amount of rent due under the tenancy agreement over this period is $7,062.86. 16

I have decided that the tenancy premises are unlawful. The law says the Tribunal must not order the tenant to pay rent arrears unless there are special circumstances (including the nature of the premises) that would make it unjust not to do so; s78A(3)(a)(i) RTA. I consider this at the end of this decision. Landlord claim for compensation

The landlord claims compensation.

My decisions on the landlord’s claims are:- a. Compensation for damage to a couch of $300.00: I dismiss this claim as there was no evidence to show damage or loss. b. Compensation for cleaning costs/time of $1,120.00: photographs show the tenant left his belongings inside the premises. He did not return so I accept the landlord had to remove these and clean the cabin. The tenant has a lot of belongings. The Tribunal can compensate a landlord for their time in doing this sort of work, but no breakdown or description of the time involved was provided. c. Compensation for storage costs of $660.00: the landlord has been storing the tenant’s belongings since the tenancy ended. This is now the subject of tenant application 5327713 (yet to be heard) and I propose to deal with any landlord claim for storage costs as part of that decision. d. An order to dispose of the tenant’s belongings (estimated value $250.00). This is now the subject of tenant application 5327713 (yet to be heard). I will consider this claim as part of that decision.

I have decided that the tenancy premises are unlawful. The law says the Tribunal must not order the tenant to pay compensation or damages to the landlord unless there are special circumstances (including the nature of the premises) that would make it unjust not to do so; s78A(3)(a)(ii) RTA.

I have decided there are no special circumstances that mean the landlord should be awarded compensation for cleaning costs and time. The main issue is the return of the tenant’s belongings and any detriment or loss to the landlord in removing and storing these can be addressed in application 5327713. Rent refund and rent arrears 16 29 weeks x $240.00 = $6,960.00 + 3 days = $102.86 = $7,062.86.

The tenant has applied for a refund of all rent he has paid. This is $5,760.00.

The Tribunal can refund the whole of the sum paid as rent if premises are unlawful; see s78A(4)(a)(i) RTA.

The Tribunal can also award less than a full refund of rent if there are “special circumstances” that mean it is fair to do so; s78A(4)(a)(ii) RTA.

The law does not specify what sorts of special circumstances are relevant except for the nature of the premises.

The factors that weigh in favour of a rent refund are:- a. The landlord intentionally did not obtain a building consent for the cabin. This means there are no external checks as to whether it complies with the building code. It is easy to check whether a consent is required. The government provides an easy-to-use tool at “canibuildit.govt.nz” that tells users whether their planned project requires a building consent. b. The living area in the cabin is open to the outdoors through the roofing gaps and therefore would have been damper than it should have been. Rain and air moisture could enter. Being protected from external moisture entering a dwelling is a core expectation. It affects warmth and mould growth. c. The roof of the living area was not insulated. This is mandatory and has been required in tenancy premises for 6 years. A lack of insulation makes buildings more susceptible to both heat and cold. d. The public policy behind the introduction of the law relating to unlawful residential premises (s78A RTA) which is to discourage landlords from renting out properties that are unconsented or have had their use changed without being checked to ensure their safe and healthy occupation by tenants. In moving that the bill relating to section 78A be read a first time in Parliament, the Hon Dr Nick Smith stated: “.. There have been examples around the country of garages or other properties that are being rented out that do not go anywhere near meeting the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act but where there are limitations on our new compliance teams being able to enforce them because of that jurisdiction issue. My view is that the amendments in this bill that make it plain that the tribunal has full jurisdiction over unlawful residential premises will strengthen the regulatory environment and ensure that those people who attempt to rent out such properties are held accountable.”

There are some special circumstances that mean it is fair that the tenant does not receive a full refund of rent. These are:- a. That the landlord supplied power and gas as part of the rent. The tenant used these facilities, so it is fair he contributes something towards them. There is no way to know the actual costs so I must take account of this as best I can. b. The bathroom and bedroom appear (from the photographs) to be of good quality and there is no evidence of detriment or failure of the facilities. c. The tenant did receive some benefit from living at the cabin and did so over the warmer months of the year (November until March) during which time the deficiencies in the cabin may not have had as much impact as over winter.

The rent due under the tenancy agreement is $240.00 per week. I have decided to reduce the rent payable by 50% meaning the weekly rent (including power and gas) is reduced to $120.00.

The tenancy was 29 weeks and 3 days long, so the total rent payable is $3,531.43. 17

The tenant has paid rent of $5,760.00. This means he is awarded $2,228.57 as a rent refund.

My decision to refund rent means I make no award to the landlord for rent arrears. Exemplary damages for breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards and failure to comply with the Building Act 2004

When tenancy premises are unlawful, the Tribunal may make an order the landlord must pay exemplary damages for failing to comply with all legal requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety; s78A(5)(c) RTA.

The landlord has also breached the Healthy Homes Standards; s45(1)(bb) RTA.

Exemplary damages are like a fine and a maximum of $7,200.00 may be awarded where the breaches are intentional and if it is just to do so after considering the intent, effect, interests and public interest; s45(1A), s109 and Schedule 1A RTA.

The failure to obtain a building consent and to comply with the HHS is intentional. The landlord knew he had not done these things.

His intent seems to have been to receive rent without complying with the required standards. He made comments during the hearing indicating he thought he had provided the tenant with a service that the tenant was happy with and that the Tribunal was bringing about an injustice by holding him to account about the compliance failings. 17 $120 x 29 weeks = $3,480.00 plus $120 x 3 days = $51.43.

The effect of the breaches is difficult to know as the tenant did not give evidence showing any significant detriment from living in the cabin (for example, there was no evidence of plumbing failures, or water getting inside).

The interests of tenants is that they can expect that rental premises comply with the safety, durability, and sanitary requirements of the Building Code and with the Healthy Homes Standards.

The public interest is important. There is little point having legal requirements unless they are enforced. The public expects they will be.

It is just to award exemplary damages. The tenant received some benefit from living in the cabin and this is why I do not refund all of his rent but the landlord needs to understand the “rules” are there for good reason and do apply to him. I award 50% of the maximum which is $3,600.00. Filing fee and suppression of name

I award the tenant the filing fee.

Both parties request suppression of their names from the published order. The Tribunal must usually grant this if a party has been wholly or substantially successful but also considers the public interest and conduct of the parties; section 95A RTA.

The tenant has been substantially successful with his application and there is no reason to refuse his request to suppress his name. This is ordered.

The landlord has not been substantially successful and given the breaches of the Act, I do not suppress his name.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5259999 — net $6,355.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: rent refund	$2,228.57	rent refund
Exemplary damages: failure to lodge the bond	$500.00	failure to lodge the bond
Exemplary damages: breach of Building Act 2004 and of the Healthy Homes Standards	$3,600.00	breach of Building Act 2004 and of the Healthy Homes Standards
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,355.57
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,355.57