What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5267823 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made by the applicants and respondents

How much money was awarded in case 5267823?

Compensation: Landlord’S Breaches: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5267823?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5267823?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12973851-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5267823 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made by the applicants and respondents

How much money was awarded in case 5267823?

Compensation: Landlord’S Breaches: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5267823?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5267823?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12973851-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

2 Aunceston Rise, Alfriston, Auckland 2105 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5267823 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5267823 — net $5,227.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Landlord’s breaches	$3,000.00	Landlord’s breaches
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory notice	$2,200.00	Retaliatory notice
Net award	$5,227.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,227.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5267823 — net $5,227.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Landlord’s breaches	$3,000.00	Landlord’s breaches
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory notice	$2,200.00	Retaliatory notice
Net award	$5,227.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,227.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made by the applicants and respondents in this case. The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names but not the address of the tenancy property that they have now vacated. The landlord’s name is not suppressed.
The Worx Property Management Limited As Agent For Shahida Sarwar must pay the tenants $5,227.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Compensation: Landlord’s breaches $3,000.00 Exemplary damages: Retaliatory notice $2,200.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $5,227.00

Reasons

All parties were either present or represented at the hearing. Reason for the addition of Shahida Sarwar as a respondent.
The tenants are an extended family unit who make the current application before the Tribunal. They named the property management company, The Worx Property Management Limited, as an agent for Shahida Sarwar. I am told that the certificate of title records Mrs Sarwar as the owner. Her husband attended today stating that he is also an owner of the property. This is presumably as shared relationship property. He accepts he is not on the title but he has made all relevant decisions as an owner for the purposes of this application. Mrs Shahida Sarwar has had no material dealings with the parties.
The Worx Property Management Limited requested that the owner be added as a party. Their reason is that they always acted under the owner’s direction. Mr Sarwar confirmed that. The tenants agreed that the owner should be joined as a party to this application. Given the certificate of title only names Mrs Sarwar and her husband acted as her agent, her name is added. The claim
The tenants have claimed $52,000.00 as compensation for the landlord’s breaches of their Tenancy Agreement and/or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The compensation claimed has been calculated by a reduction of rent from $1,300.00 to $900.00 for a period of 130 weeks.
The issues to be considered are: a. Should the tenants be compensated because of water accumulating in the swimming pool? b. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises or fail to maintain the premises within a reasonable time? c. Did the landlord’s contractors enter the premises unlawfully or breach the tenants’ privacy? d. Did the landlord fail to comply with Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)? e. What amount of compensation should be ordered? f. Was the landlord’s termination notice retaliatory? g. Should exemplary damages be ordered? Should the tenants be compensated because of water accumulating in the swimming pool?
The tenanted property included a fenced swimming pool. The parties did not dispute that the Tenancy Agreement excluded the pool from the tenancy.
The tenants stated that as part of the tenancy agreement, the landlord promised to empty the swimming pool and have it covered. They stated that the pool was not covered at any time from the start of the tenancy on 18 November 2022 to the date of the hearing. They said that the pool collected water and attracted mosquitoes, other bugs and frogs. They submitted that the stagnant water also affected a young family member’s health. Shortly before the Tribunal hearing the tenants provided a water sample to Hills Laboratory for analysis. The Report from Hills Laboratory showed the Standard Plate Count (SPC) exceeded 1,000 cfu/ml and Faecal Coliforms exceeded 100 cfu/100ml. These readings show excessive levels for SPC and Faecal Coliforms.
The tenants also provided photos of the young child who was suffering from a skin condition. They attributed that to the mosquitos and stagnant swimming pool water.
The tenants stated in one email that the landlord had emptied the pool five times using a pump and their electricity. They claimed that they should be reimbursed for the cost of the power.
The tenants stated that because of the pool’s proximity to a sitting out area of the property, their enjoyment of the property was compromised.
The landlord did not deny that a previous property manger told the tenants that the pool would be emptied and covered (or filled in) after the tenancy began. The owner had investigated having the pool repaired but had decided against it after receiving estimates of $30,000.00 to $50,000.00. The problem with a cover was that it would not make the pool waterproof.
The landlord stated that there are many locations in and around this property here water pools. The property borders a rural area. The landlord’s opinion was that if the child’s condition is from mosquito bites, it could also be from mosquitos from any pooling water around the property or from a nearby property.
The landlord stated that until recently, the pool had been emptied each time the tenants had complained about water in the pool.
I have considered all the submissions made by the parties regarding the swimming pool water. While the swimming pool was not part of the tenancy as far as being a facility for the tenants’ use, it was connected to the tenancy as a landlord responsibility. That is because the landlord undertook to carry out the work necessary to avoid any problem for the tenants regarding stagnant water in the pool. The obligation was not recorded in the parties’ Tenancy Agreement; however, oral undertakings are also contractually binding. The landlord’s promise was that there would be a permanent fix by emptying and covering the pool. That did not happen in the tenancy of almost three years.
The tenants are entitled to compensation for the landlord’s failure to provide a permanent remedy for the ongoing stagnant pool water. In considering the amount that should be ordered I have considered the following: a. I am satisfied that this failure affected the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the property because of the appearance of stagnant water close by a sitting out area and the threat of more mosquitos at the property. This should be factored into an order for compensation. b. There is no dispute that the young relative ( a child) had skin issues that the tenants attribute to the pool water. However, there was insufficient medical evidence provided to conclude that the cause of the skin condition was mosquitos from the swimming pool and no other water areas in and around the property. Compensation cannot be ordered where the tenants have been unable to prove that the child’s condition was definitely linked to the swimming pool water alone. c. The report from Hills Laboratory showed readings confirmed the water was unsafe to drink or swim in. However, the readings do not confirm that a person outside the pool would be in danger. Research shows that standing by water with a high standard plate count (SPC), also known as heterotrophic plate count (HPC), is generally not dangerous for healthy humans. The test measures a broad range of common bacteria, most of which are harmless and naturally occur in the environment. Therefore, compensation is not ordered regarding the water quality readings because although polluted, it was not a danger to the tenants’ health. d. In any case where a tenant or landlord believes there has been a breach, it is that person’s’ responsibility to mitigate the other parties’ loss. In this case, the tenants believed that the landlord had breached an obligation regarding the pool water and could have applied to the Tribunal within months of their tenancy commencing. The Tribunal could have made a work order requiring the landlord to address the problem and the matter would have been resolved. However, the tenants did not apply to the Tribunal for a remedy until two years and seven months after tenancy commenced. They have claimed compensation for a period of time that is unacceptable in light of their delay in bringing this matter to the Tribunal. They are entitled to some compensation for the problem they experienced with swimming pool water, but it cannot be based on the problem existing throughout the tenancy. I should note that this failure to apply to the Tribunal earlier applies to all the tenants’ claims except the claim for retaliatory notice. e. The tenants have claimed the cost of power to empty the pool. There were no power accounts provided in evidence that might show an increase in power consumption when the pool was being emptied. However, I accept that some additional power consumption beyond the norm would’ve been required, and so have taken into account some nominal minimal compensation when deciding the compensation to be ordered. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises or fail to maintain the premises within a reasonable time?
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. They referred to the blinds not being replaced within a reasonable time, fallen trees not being removed, kitchen cabinets taking too long to replace and being a different colour once done, and grounds not being maintained regularly.
I am satisfied that the tenants notified the landlord at the start of the tenancy that the blinds were mouldy and in an unacceptable condition. The landlord accepted the tenants’ complaint. The landlord did eventually replace the blinds; however, the replacement did not take place until May 2024. I am satisfied that the landlord failed to maintain within a reasonable time and the tenants are entitled to compensation for this breach.
It is also clear that the landlord did not comply with the tenant’s ongoing maintenance requests that resulted in the tenants 14-day notice dated 6 December 2024 and the follow up reminder on 20 December 2024.
I have considered the tenants’ claim regarding fallen trees and grounds maintenance. I am not satisfied that this problem was of such a nature or extent that it warrants compensation.
The tenants informed the landlord that there was a kitchen cabinet work necessary. The work was minor. The cabinet problems were remedied. The tenants complained that there was a poor colour match. I accept the colours of the drawer fronts did not match. I have considered whether this maintenance issue warrants compensation. I do not consider the issue was significant enough to warrant compensation. Did the landlord’s contractors enter the premises unlawfully or breach the tenants’ privacy?
The tenants claim that the landlord acted unlawfully by permitting contractors to enter the property without adequate notice. They claim that the contractor’s presence breached their privacy. The Tribunal accepts that on occasion the landlord may have failed to adequately communicate the arrival of various tradespersons. Landlords are permitted to enter a property without notice but not enter the premises without notice. Section 48(7) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 confirms that premises in section 48 does not include land and appurtenances. The contractors were carrying out work on the sceptic tank and other work outside the premises. It was work that benefitted the tenants. The tenants were unable to provide examples of where contractors entered the premises without their consent or without notice. There would have been a minimal impact on the tenants’ privacy when the contractors were at the property.
I am satisfied that the presence of contractors was not unlawful. Nor does it warrant an order for compensation. Did the landlord fail to comply with Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)?
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard. The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains.
In support of their claim the tenants provided photos showing surface water at the property. However, there was insufficient context regarding the photos such as how long it had been raining or stopped raining when the photo was taken or how long the water had been on the ground. There was no report provided from a HHS expert that could assist the Tribunal with a finding about this claim. The tenants’ photos of water lying on the ground is insufficient evidence to prove a breach HHS.

What amount of compensation should be ordered?

The tenants are entitled to compensation for the effects that these breaches had on them. My order takes into account factors referred to in paragraph 21 of this decision and the merits and justice of the case. I have also considered compensation I have ordered in other cases to be consistent. The tenants claim a refund of $400.00 rent per week but that is not warranted. The tenants had the use of the premises throughout. Compensation should be based on the effect that the breaches had on the tenants including diminution of their enjoyment of the premises and discomfort. I have ordered $3,000.00 compensation be paid. Was the landlord’s termination notice retaliatory?
On 9 July 2025, the landlord gave the tenants a notice ending the tenancy on Tuesday, 7 October 2025. The tenants claim the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenants must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The date the notice was given is significant. It was the day after the parties’ mediation hearing at which the applicants deciding to continue to a hearing in the Tribunal. The purported reasons eventually given for the notice was a complete surprise to the tenants. There had been no prior discussion between the parties about the landlord needing the property. I am satisfied that the timing of the notice seriously suggests that it is retaliatory.
Although it is the tenant’s burden to prove that the landlord’s termination decision was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, the burden shifts to the landlord to prove that the notice was not retaliatory when the tenant has demonstrated a strong connection between the complaints and the notice.
The landlord did not give a reason for termination in the 9 July notice. Later the landlord stated that the property was needed for a family member. The landlord referred to the property being for both the owners’ son and daughter. However, there was no supporting evidence such as emails between the owner and her family that showed a discussion in the family about the son or daughter occupying 2 Aunceston Rise. I found Mr Sarwar’s evidence on this point to lack both credibility and reliability, as there were some inconsistencies given in the reasons at the time and then at the hearing, for example, which of his children needed the property.
The balance of probability is that the landlord was reacting to the tenants’ Tribunal claims when issuing the termination notice. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Because the tenants vacated the property shortly after the hearing and before this decision, it is unnecessary for the Tribunal to order a continuation of the tenancy, and nor did the tenants wish to continue the tenancy.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

The tenants have claimed exemplary damages for a variety of matters including retaliatory notice.
Although it is an unlawful act for a landlord to fail to maintain premises, the Tribunal could not order exemplary damages for that breach in this case. That is because a landlord or tenant cannot apply for exemplary damages 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. The maintenance breaches began over 12 months before the tenants applied to the Tribunal.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Exemplary damages may be ordered where the Tribunal is satisfied that it would be just to do so taking into account the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. For completeness, giving of a retaliatory notice does not have to be intentional to award exemplary damages for a breach. See section 109(3) and (3A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The effect of the unlawful act is that the tenants were suddenly facing uncertainty regarding their tenancy of almost two and eight months. The landlord stood to benefit from the removal of tenants who were standing up for their rights. The public interest is that landlords do not act unlawfully by placing tenancies in jeopardy when tenants exercise their rights. I am satisfied that an award for exemplary damages should be made for the retaliatory notice but no other matters the tenants have raised.
The amount ordered for exemplary damages is $2,200.00. That is approximately one third of the maximum $6,500.00. The maximum is reserved for recidivist offenders. There are no other known situations where this landlord has acted unlawfully regarding retaliatory notices. Filing Fee
Because the tenants have been partly successful with the claim the filing fee of $27.00 is ordered to be paid by the landlord. Suppression
The tenants and landlord have applied for name suppression.
Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants have substantially succeeded regarding this application and therefore name suppression is granted.
The landlord has not substantially succeeded in the defence of this claim and therefore name suppression is not granted. P. Singh 15 January 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5267823 — Exemplary damages at 2 Aunceston Rise, Alfriston, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5267823 — Exemplary damages at 2 Aunceston Rise, Alfriston, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What amount of compensation should be ordered?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What amount of compensation should be ordered?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions