What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5268439 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5268439?

Compensation: Breach of healthy home…: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- c…: $1,171.43 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- p…: $101.43 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- r…: $428.57 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain-dr…: $1,141.43 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide HHS…: $1,771.42 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide sig…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Painting Bedroom 1: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Painting Lounge And Entrance Way: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Tenancy Commenced: $375.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5268439?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5268439?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12198821-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5268439 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5268439?

Compensation: Breach of healthy home…: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- c…: $1,171.43 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- p…: $101.43 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- r…: $428.57 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain-dr…: $1,141.43 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide HHS…: $1,771.42 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide sig…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Painting Bedroom 1: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Painting Lounge And Entrance Way: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Tenancy Commenced: $375.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5268439?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5268439?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12198821-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5268439 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5268439 — net $9,266.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Painting bedroom 1	$500.00		Painting bedroom 1
Painting lounge and entrance way	$1,000.00		Painting lounge and entrance way
Compensation: Failure to provide signed TA before		$100.00	Failure to provide signed TA before
tenancy commenced		$375.00	tenancy commenced
Compensation: Failure to provide HHS and		$1,771.42	Failure to provide HHS and
Compensation: Failure to maintain- cockroaches		$1,171.43	Failure to maintain- cockroaches
Compensation: Failure to maintain- rats		$428.57	Failure to maintain- rats
Compensation: Failure to maintain-draughts		$1,141.43	Failure to maintain-draughts
Compensation: Failure to maintain- power points		$101.43	Failure to maintain- power points
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment x 2		$750.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment x 2
Exemplary damages: Breach of s45(1)(b) and (c		$2,400.00	Breach of s45(1)(b) and (c
Compensation: Breach of healthy homes standards		$2,500.00	Breach of healthy homes standards
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,500.00	$10,766.28
Net award		$9,266.28
Bond		$1,160.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$9,266.28

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5268439 — net $9,266.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Painting bedroom 1	$500.00		Painting bedroom 1
Painting lounge and entrance way	$1,000.00		Painting lounge and entrance way
Compensation: Failure to provide signed TA before		$100.00	Failure to provide signed TA before
tenancy commenced		$375.00	tenancy commenced
Compensation: Failure to provide HHS and		$1,771.42	Failure to provide HHS and
Compensation: Failure to maintain- cockroaches		$1,171.43	Failure to maintain- cockroaches
Compensation: Failure to maintain- rats		$428.57	Failure to maintain- rats
Compensation: Failure to maintain-draughts		$1,141.43	Failure to maintain-draughts
Compensation: Failure to maintain- power points		$101.43	Failure to maintain- power points
Exemplary damages: Breach of quiet enjoyment x 2		$750.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment x 2
Exemplary damages: Breach of s45(1)(b) and (c		$2,400.00	Breach of s45(1)(b) and (c
Compensation: Breach of healthy homes standards		$2,500.00	Breach of healthy homes standards
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,500.00	$10,766.28
Net award		$9,266.28
Bond		$1,160.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$9,266.28

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
SJ Benson Trust, Stephanie Jeanette Benson as Trustee must pay [The tenant] $9,266.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was supported by her son [name suppressed] from the Tenant Protection Association. The landlord was represented by one of its trustees, Ms Stephanie Benson and her support person, Ms Jasmine Woolrich.
The tenant applied, on 28 March 2025, for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has made a cross application, on 2 June 2025, for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy commenced on 10 February 2023 and ended on 11 June 2025.
The landlord claims the tenant has failed to pay her rent in full and on time in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement and in breach of her s40(1)(a) of the RTA obligations to pay the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement.
The rent records show that at the beginning of the tenancy Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ) paid the rent directly to the landlord at $580 per week.
There were two instances in the first year of the tenancy where the rent payments stopped for four weeks at a time, but WINZ paid the rent arrears not long after each of these four-week periods.
The tenant stated that her benefit was cut off at these times for various reasons and once reinstated the arrears were cleared by WINZ.
The tenant suggested that on one of these occasions the benefit being cut off was due to the landlord not having fully completed her vendor status with WINZ. The landlord produced evidence that shows that there was an issue with WINZ in relation to it providing WINZ with its bank account details, and that this did not interrupt the rent payments being processed.
The rent records show that from 1 November 2023 the tenant paid $450.00 per week rent instead of the $580.00 recorded in the tenancy agreement. The landlord claims that tis has resulted in the tenant owing it $10,7900.00 rent arrears at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant claims the landlord had verbally agreed to the rent reduction after some Facebook messenger dialogue between her and Ms Benson, where the tenant explains that she has been to the next-door side of the house and that it is in a far better state of repair, with a heat pump and other things and that the neighbour is paying $50.00 less rent per week. She sought a rent reduction as she pointed out that her rental premise was not in a reasonable condition and there were lots of repair and maintenance issues that needed to be addressed.
The tenant says that initially the landlord refused to give her a rent reduction but after giving this dialogue some thought the landlord had called her to offer her the rent reduction of $130.00 per week, making the new rental rate $450.00 rather than $580.00 per week. The landlord denies this.
The evidence shows that when the rent was first in arrears because of the tenant’s benefit being cut off, the landlord pursued the tenant for these arrears to be paid. From November 2023 the evidence shows the landlord did not follow up the rent arrears the rent records show were accruing, until the tenant lodged her application with the Tenancy Tribunal.
The tenant says this is because the landlord had agreed to the rent reduction and then tried to back track on that agreement in retaliation for the tenant applying to the Tribunal to enforce her rights under the RTA.
The tenant and her son confirmed that during the 12 January 2025 property inspection, the landlord had informed the tenant that it intended to lift the rent back up to $580.00 per week once the repair and maintenance work had been undertaken, thus acknowledging the agreed rent reduction from 1 November 2023.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves it is more likely than not that the landlord had agreed to the rent reduction, and in retaliation for being told the tenant had decided to file her claims in the Tribunal, the landlord decided to try to recover the rent arrears she had agreed to forgo, in an attempt to try and offset the amount the tenant may be awarded if any of her claims were successful. The emailed 14- day notice dated 19 March 2025, emailed to the tenant on 27 March 2025 is the first time the landlord made any attempts to recover the monies it says it is owed.
The landlord pursued the rent arrears when the tenant’s benefit was cut off twice at the beginning of the tenancy and recovered the rent arrears from WINZ in a reasonable timeframe. It makes no logical sense that the landlord would thereafter not pursue the tenant for such burgeoning rent arrears for a period of 73 weeks and 1 day nor to try to terminate the tenancy instead of allowing the rent arrears to grow to nearly $11,000.00.
The landlord says the tenant was having personal problems and she did not want to pursue her for the rent arrears and that the tenant kept saying she would get a job soon and repay the debt. The tenant confirmed that she was suffering grief from the loss of her mother in January 2024 but that had nothing to do with the rent payments and confirmed that she was looking for work, but not because she needed to repay any rent arrears. She reiterated that the rent had been reduced by agreement between the parties and the fact the landlord did not pursue the rent arrears from 1 November 2023 to after 28 March 2025, when she made her application to the Tribunal, is proof of the oral agreement.
The landlord says there is nothing in writing to prove the parties had agreed to the rent reduction and that Ms Benson was not able to agree to a rent reduction without the consent of the other professional Trustee. There was evidence Ms Benson had acted unilaterally in reducing the rent and no evidence the other Trustee had taken steps to address the obvious rent reduction over a significant period of time. Had Ms Benson not had the authority to agree to the rent reduction, the other professional Trustee would have taken steps to enquire about the growing arrears and there is no evidence he did so.
I find that the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities the landlord did enter into a verbal agreement with the tenant to reduce the rent to $450.00 per week from 1 November 2023. It would be inequitable for the Tribunal to set aside that agreement that had been offered, agreed to and that the tenant had relied on when she paid her $450.00 per week rent regularly in compliance with that agreement. The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is therefore dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The Arlec 2400 watt heater was intentionally removed from the lounge wall and thrown out without consultation or consent; b. The flooring in the two bedrooms were intentionally water damaged by the tenant engaging in activities such as indoor gardening or the like; c. The painting the tenant had undertaken in the master bedroom and lounge/entrance way was poorly done and required stripping back, sanding, plastering and repainting.
The landlord claims this damage is more than fair wear and tear. Painting the lounge/entrance way and bedroom 1
The tenant produced photographic evidence that proves the paint on the walls in these rooms was peeling and in a very poor condition at the start of the tenancy. The tenant says she painted these rooms after getting permission to paint bedroom 2, as the paint in these other rooms were in such a bad condition.
The landlord accepted the paint was aged and in need of redoing, but stated the poor paint job the tenant did was so bad that the repainting became an urgent requirement if the landlord was to be able to relet the premise or sell it.
The tenant and her son say that Ms Benson’s husband gave them permission to repaint the lounge/entrance way. The landlord denies this, but her husband was not present at the hearing to contest this evidence. The tenant claims that Ms Benson had stated she did not like the dark grey colour and wanted the walls painted white, they had agreed to repaint the walls white. The tenant says the landlord said that she would locate cheap paint, as she is an auctioneer, and would supply the paint to the tenant for her to complete the paint job. The tenant says the landlord never provided the paint and so the lounge and entrance way walls were left in a preparation for repainting state at the end of the tenancy. The landlord confirmed she had agreed to source cheap paint and had not done so but denied having agreed to pay for that paint. She accepted the tenant had not completed the paint job in the lounge/entrance way because of the landlord getting distracted with other things and not sourcing the paint as promised. I am satisfied the tenant had permission from the landlord’s husband to paint the lounge entrance way and had Ms Benson supplied the white paint as promised the walls in these areas would have been repainted at the end of the tenancy. I am also satisfied the evidence proves that the walls were not in a reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy and needed repainting, but the tenant had caused damage to the paint that they had not fully remedied at the end of the tenancy and the walls were an eye sore. I find that the tenants should be held liable for part of the cost of reinstating the walls back to the same or similar condition as when the tenancy commenced and award the landlord $1,000.00 towards the cost of that remediation work.
I also find that the tenant did not have the landlord’s consent to paint bedroom 1 and that the grey paint was peeling off the wall behind the bed when the tenant vacated the premise. The degeneration of the grey paint was in part due to the poor condition of the paint on the bedroom 1 walls at the start of the tenancy. I find that the tenant should be held liable for part of the cost of reinstating these walls back to the same or similar condition as when the tenancy commenced and award the landlord $500.00 towards the cost of that remediation work.
The amount ordered is proved.
I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Arlec heater
The landlord has proven the tenant removed the heater off the wall and disposed of it without informing the landlord or returning the heater to the landlord to see if it could be repaired.
The landlord says she had replaced this heater but had no evidence to prove she had done so.
Compensation is only paid to a party where they have proven they have suffered a loss and have produced evidence to prove the exact amount lost. The landlord has only produced an advertisement to show the cost of replacing the heater but has not produced evidence the heater has been replaced. The claim is therefore dismissed. TENANT’S CLAIMS Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b)and (c) of the RTA obligations to the tenant?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b) the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
The extent of the landlord’s obligation to repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 6 The Court noted that there was no absolute liability/responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair.5 7 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time. The Court stated: “... 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 may be”. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. 6 CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007. 7 RTA, section 40(1)(d).
Under section 45(1)(c) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
Breaching any s45(1) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00, if the breach(es) was intentional. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain and to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety as they apply to the premise (s45(1)(b) and (c) of the RTA)
The tenant claims the landlord has failed to meet its s45(1)(b) and (c) of the RTA obligations in that the premise was not provided and maintained to a reasonable standard in all the circumstances, nor did the landlord meet its regulation 7 obligation in accordance with regulation 7 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (“HIR”). Stove
The tenant confirmed that all the elements on the stove top stopped working on 6 September 2024. She notified the landlord’s husband, Damian Colgan, by Facebook messenger saying, “hey my ovens not working”. She sent a follow up message on 7 September 2024 saying, “hey I need a cooker”. On 9 September 2024, she sent a further message saying “I haven’t had anything to cook off all weekend. Just give me something to take to WINZ that would be helpful”. Mr Colgan finally responded on 9 September 2024, saying “Ok sorry in a bit of a storm right now- smiley face emoji”.
The tenant had nothing to cook her food with, so she went to WINZ to get approval to purchase a one element cooker.
Section 45(1)(b) of the RTA requires that the landlord provide and maintain the stove top to a reasonable standard in all the circumstances. Additionally, Regulation 7 of the HIR specifies the need for "adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food, both by boiling and by baking". This provision requires the presence of both a stovetop and an oven or similar baking appliance to be provided to tenants. Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA also requires the landlord to comply with the HIR.
Ms Benson stated, “it was news to me that the stove needed fixing until 12 January 2025”, indicating that the first she knew of the issue was when the tenant raised it during the 12 January 2025 property inspection. Further, Ms Benson stated “Damian did not pass this on. He said he had a discussion with her when he was unblocking the drains. He says she wanted privacy and wanted to provide her own stove top”. Additionally, Ms Benson stated that when she “saw the stove top on 12 January 2025” she “thought she better deal with it”. Ms Benson also accepted she “was slow at dealing with the stove”.
The landlord tried to deliver a new stove on 15 February 2025, but came unannounced, as she “didn’t think to call ahead” and “didn’t think she should have to call ahead as tenant should be happy to get the stove”. The tenant would not allow entry, so the landlord and her husband left it under the house so they could continue to use the truck for their auction business.
The tenant issued the landlord with a 14-day notice on 20 March 2025, the stove top was one of the items on that notice. The new stove was installed on 12 May 2025.
I am satisfied the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities, the landlord intentionally did not take steps to get the stove issues investigated, quoted or repaired in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances because Ms Benson was busy with her auction business and she did not communicate effectively with her husband, who she had asked to undertake some property management tasks on her behalf. Consequently, the tenant had to go to WINZ to ask for funds to purchase a one element benchtop stove while she waited for her landlord to meet its s45(1)(b) and (c) of the RTA obligations to her.
I find the tenant should receive a rent rebate for the period she lived with the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience from not having the stove to cook on from 6 September 2024 to 12 May 2025.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $50.00 per week for the period 6 September 2024 to 12 May 2025 (35 weeks and 3 days). being a rent rebate of $1,771.42 ordered.
I am satisfied it would also be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord and/or its nominated representative knew of the issue and did not take reasonable steps to investigate and remedy it; b. The tenant suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind it of its obligations under the RTA to no avail ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity for 35 weeks and 3 days; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for the stove related breach will be addressed at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breaches section of this Order, with all the other intentional breaches by the landlord of its s45(1) of the RTA obligations, for which a maximum of $7,200.00 of exemplary damages may be awarded. Cockroaches
The tenant first notified the landlord about the cockroach infestation on Facebook Messenger on 14 March 2023. In this message the tenant asks the landlord to clean up the cockroaches as there is an infestation of them and she did not have them at her last rental premise.
The landlord disputes whether the cockroaches were raised so early in the tenancy. She says she got sick of hearing about the pests as there was a number of other things the tenant was also complaining about. She recalls the tenant had told her she had been bitten by an Avondale spider and been hospitalized with the pain, swelling and significant skin irritation. The tenant confirmed she had sent a picture of the spider to the landlord and the landlord had said it was not her issue.
The tenant complained again about the cockroaches in October 2023 via Facebook Messenger.
The tenant’s stated he also had conversation with the landlord about this issue and told the landlord the cockroaches had easy access to the premise through the unfinished joinery. He confirmed the landlord told him she had also had issues with cockroaches when she lived at the premise. The landlord denies this.
The tenant states when the landlord came to the house in May 2025, she brought the tenant four bug bomb cans that were broken. She says they would not click on, and she assumed the bug bombs had not worked for the landlord so they were passed on to the tenant.
The tenant says that despite her paying $90.00 for the 1, 2, 3 step pest programme, the cockroach infestation was so bad that it had damaged her microwave and two fridges so badly they stopped working and had to be thrown out.
At the time the tenancy ended, the landlord had done nothing to address the severe cockroach infestation.
During the hearing the landlord stated that she did not see why the cockroach infestation was the landlord’s issue and the tenant should be held responsible for pest control in the premise.
The tenant has confirmed that the cockroach infestation was so severe that they: a. Chewed through paper, cardboard, fabric, and even some plastics, damaged books, stored goods, important documents, and furniture; b. Nested in and around her electrical appliances, such as two fridges and a microwave, damaging wiring and circuitry, that led to these appliances’ failure, also creating fire hazards; and c. Left droppings and saliva that caused staining and unpleasant odours, particularly in areas where they had nested and foraged for food.
It is also well known that in some cases, cockroach infestations in walls, flooring, and insulation can cause minor structural issues to a premise as they burrow and create nests and that they can contaminate food, spread diseases and trigger allergies and asthma.
The tenant also confirmed that she had to get a $500.00 loan from WINZ to hire a ski bin to dispose of all the cockroach infested clothing, appliances and other goods as she could not take these with her to her next home.
The tenant’s evidence proves on the balance of probabilities the landlord intentionally did not take steps to investigate or remediate the cockroach infestation in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances. Consequently, the tenant had to go to WINZ to ask for funds to purchase the 1,2,3 step pest programme while she waited for her landlord to meet its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations to her.
I find the tenant should receive a rent rebate for the period she lived with the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience from the cockroach infestation from 14 March 2023 to 11 June 2025.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $10.00 per week for the period 14 March 2023 to 11 June 2025 (117 weeks and 1 day) being a rent rebate of $1,171.43 ordered.
Section109(2)(b) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage in that this provision states that the tenant cannot apply for exemplary damages for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. This breach occurred from 14 March 2023 and therefore the tenant was statutorily barred from applying for exemplary damages for this breach from 14 March 2024. The tenant made this application on 28 September 2025, well past the statutory timeframe to bring this claim.
For these reasons, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages for this s45(1)(b) of the RTA breach. Rats
The tenant confirmed she first reported the rats to the landlord on 12 January 2025, as the rats had chewed through the wall in the laundry and through the washing machine electrics and through the adjacent kitchen wall behind the oven.
The landlord says she brought rat bait and placed it in the garage on 19 March 2025. The tenant confirmed the landlord laid 3 cubes of rat bait in the tenant’s part of the garage, not where the rats had been seen and caused damage. The tenant says she had not seen any evidence of rats or rat damage in the garage.
The tenant says she had also purchased rat bait and traps on 19 March 2025 as the rats were entering from where the landlord’s possessions were stored under the house in a gibed off area that was directly underneath the laundry, bedroom and bathroom and under the neighbour’s house. She stated that the neighbours had rats too.
The tenant says she never showed the landlord that her washing machine had been chewed through as she was more overwhelmed by the fact they had been eating through the walls.
The tenant had evidence the cat caught one rat and the tenant caught another one with the bait she had placed in the laundry. However, the rat infestation continued to be an issue for the remainder of the tenancy.
The landlord stated that the tenant had left black plastic bags of rubbish outside the house and that was what was attracting the rats. The tenant and her son confirmed the black bags were not outside for long and contained the cockroach infested clothing, sheets and parts of appliances damaged from the severe cockroach infestation.
The tenant’s evidence proves on the balance of probabilities the landlord intentionally did not take steps to investigate or remediate the rat infestation in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances. Consequently, the tenant suffered rat damage t her washing machine and had to live with the health risks posed by rats while she waited for her landlord to meet its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations to her.
I find the tenant should receive a rent rebate for the period she lived with the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience from the rat infestation from 12 January 2025 to 11 June 2025.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $20.00 per week for the period 12 January 2025 to 11 June 2025 (21 weeks and 3 days) being a rent rebate of $428.57 ordered.
I am satisfied it would also be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord knew of the rat infestation and did not take reasonable steps to investigate and remedy the issue; b. The tenant suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind it of its obligations under the RTA to no avail ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity for 21 weeks and 3 days; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for the stove related breach will be addressed at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breaches section of this Order, with all the other intentional breaches by the landlord of its s45(1) of the RTA obligations, for which a maximum of $7,200.00 of exemplary damages may be awarded. Draughts
The tenant produced evidence that she first raised the gaps and cracks throughout the house, causing draughts and making it hard to keep the place warm, on 4 April 2023.
The draught related issues complained of are as follows: a. Gaps under bedroom doors letting cold draughts into the bedrooms; b. Cracks in wooden floorboards letting draughts into the house; c. Window frames split and swollen from moisture and creating gaps where the windows could not be shut properly; and d. Broken window latches
The tenant produced photographic evidence of these issues and Facebook Messenger messages that prove she raised these issues on 4 April 2023, October 2023 (after she had visited the neighbour’s half of the house and found it in better condition for $50.00 less rent per week), on 12 January 2025 during the property inspection and in the tenant’s 14-day notice to remedy on 20 March 2025.
After the April 2023 message, the parties agree Mr Damian Colgan came around to drop off draught tape to the tenant. The tenant says he told her he didn’t have time to install it and wanted to leave installation to the tenant. The landlord denies this and says the tenant told Mr Colgan she did not want him in the house and wanted to install the tape herself. The tenant denies this, she says at that stage there was no privacy issues, and she was happy for Damian to do it as she did not know what she was doing. The tenant tried to install the tape herself, but it fell off after a few weeks.
The tenant says the trust was broken on 12 January 2025 when the landlord went through the house and took unauthorized photographs of the tenant’s belongings after having not done any proper inspections during the tenancy.
The landlord says started to make appointments with tradespeople to undertake the repairs in late March 2025, after the tenant’s 14 day notice to remedy and her 28 March 2025 application to the Tribunal.
The landlord made appointments to do to the premise on 14 and 19 May 2025 to begin installation of a new big window in the lounge and window latches and to investigate the gaps in the floorboards. The tenant’s son contracted COVID-19 and the repair work had to be delayed.
None of this work had been undertaken by 11 June 202 when the tenant and her son moved out.
The tenant’s evidence proves on the balance of probabilities the landlord intentionally did not take steps to investigate or remediate the causes of the draughts in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances. Consequently, the tenant suffered by living in a cold and draughty while she waited for her landlord to meet its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations to her.
I find the tenant should receive a rent rebate for the period she lived with the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience from the draughts from 4 April 2023 to 11 June 2025.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $10.00 per week for the period 4 April 2023 to 11 June 2025 (114 weeks and 1 day) being a rent rebate of $1,141.43 ordered.
Section109(2)(b) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage in that this provision states that the tenant cannot apply for exemplary damages for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. This breach occurred from 4 April 2023 and therefore the tenant was statutorily barred from applying for exemplary damages for this breach from 4 April 2024. The tenant made this application on 28 September 2025, well past the statutory timeframe to bring this claim. For these reasons, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages for this s45(1)(b) of the RTA breach. Rangehood
The tenant states the rangehood never worked properly from the start of the tenancy, but she did not raise it with the landlord.
The first time the landlord became aware of the rangehood issues was when it received the Mint Report email on 11 June 2025. The tenant sent the Mint report to the landlord in May 2025, but it was not sent to the address for service contained in the tenancy agreement. The landlord confirmed the email address the Mint report was sent to in May 2025 did not belong to it.
The landlord produced a witness statement from Bryan French, an electrician, that states there was nothing wrong with the rangehood, the tenant had it switched off at the wall and it would have worked fine if she had turned it on.
A landlord cannot be expected to investigate and remediate repair and maintenance issues that are not raised with it. The tenant’s claim is dismissed accordingly. Heater
The tenant states the heater was not well fixed to the wall and was hanging off the wall by two loose screws. The tenant confirmed that, not long after the tenancy started, she had removed the heater as it was dangerous hanging off the wall and it did not heat the room very well and cost a lot of money to run. She also confirmed that she purchased some heaters herself for the house that were less expensive to run and so she did not raise the issue with the landlord.
The issue of the heater first came to the landlord’s attention when Ms Benson undertook a property inspection on 12 January 2025. She demanded the tenant return the removed heater to her so she could see if it could be repaired or if it needed to be replaced.
The tenant confirmed that it was not working, so she threw it out near the start of the tenancy and that it had not met the healthy homes standard heating requirement for the living room and would have needed to be replaced anyway.
A landlord cannot be expected to investigate and remediate repair and maintenance issues that are not raised with it. The tenant’s claim is dismissed accordingly as she did not raise the heater falling off the wall, its noncompliance with the heating standard or that it no longer worked and needed replacing at the start of the tenancy and by the time the landlord identified that the heater was missing, the tenant did not want it replaced as she had her own heaters that she had been using for the majority of the tenancy. Entrances to wardrobes and both bedrooms
The tenant says the entrances to the wardrobes and both bedrooms had manhole type gaps in the ceiling that were not covered and let draughts and pests into the house as the large gaps went straight into the roof cavity.
The tenant says the landlord placed some polystyrene into these holes on the last day of the tenancy.
The landlord says the tenant never raised this issue with it and that this issue is not in the Mint report or the tenant’s 20 March 2025 14-day notice to remedy.
A landlord cannot be expected to investigate and remediate repair and maintenance issues that are not raised with it. The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Moisture barriers- shower, bathroom and laundry
The parties confirm the first time this was raised with the landlord was on 11 June 2025 when it received the Mint report. The tenant had never raised these issues during the tenancy.
A landlord cannot be expected to investigate and remediate repair and maintenance issues that are not raised with it. The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Faulty power points
The tenant confirms that she first raised the issue of the faulty power plugs and no light in the hallway during the 12 January 2025 property inspection and then again in the14 day notice issued to the landlord on 20 March 2025.
The photographs taken during the 12 January 2025 inspection show the tenant has extension cords running through house due to rats having damaged a number of power points in the house.
The landlord confirmed that on 24 March 2025, three power points were replaced, one in bedroom 1, a double power point in the kitchen and one in the laundry. The tenant said the one in bedroom 1 kept shorting out. The landlord stated she was not informed of this.
The tenant’s evidence proves on the balance of probabilities the landlord intentionally did not take steps to investigate or remediate the causes of the faulty power points in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances. Consequently, the tenant suffered by having to use extension cords to get power to her bedroom, kitchen, and laundry while she waited for her landlord to meet its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations to her.
I find the tenant should receive a rent rebate for the period she lived with the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience from the faulty power points from 12 January 2025 to 24 March 2025.
I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $10.00 per week for the period 12 January 2025 to 24 March 2025 (10 weeks and 1 day) being a rent rebate of $101.43 ordered.
I am satisfied it would also be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord knew of the power point issues throughout the house and did not take reasonable steps to investigate and remedy these issues in a reasonable timeframe; b. The tenant suffered the stress and inconvenience associated with having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind it of its obligations under the RTA to no avail ; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity for 10 weeks and 1 day; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.
The issue of the quantum of exemplary damages for the stove related breach will be addressed at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breaches section of this Order, with all the other intentional breaches by the landlord of its s45(1) of the RTA obligations, for which a maximum of $7,200.00 of exemplary damages may be awarded. Did the landlord fail to meet its healthy homes standards obligations
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 10 February 2023. Therefore, the landlord had 120 days from the commencement date to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards, being Saturday, 10 June 2023.
At no time during the tenancy did the landlord invest in getting a third-party healthy homes assessment and assessment report for the premises. Ms Benson undertook he own assessment and the results of her checklist and heating assessment suggests that she did not possess the expertise to undertake an accurate assessment of the premise’s level of compliance to the healthy homes standards. The landlord stated that it never bothered to get a healthy homes assessment done as it was doing up the house to re-rent it.
The tenant had Mint Auckland undertake a healthy homes assessment on the premise on 26 March 2025, as she was concerned that the home did not comply with any of the standards. The results of this assessment were emailed to an incorrect email address for the landlord in May 2025 and the landlord finally received the results as part of these proceedings on 11 June 2025.
The tenant was under no obligation to have a heathy homes assessment done nor was she legally obligated to inform the landlord the premise did not comply with the healthy homes’ standards. The onus is on the landlord to have an accurate assessment completed at the start of each tenancy and to ensure that any areas of non-compliance is addressed before the statutory compliance date for that tenancy. The Mint report proves this premise did not meet the heathy homes requirements by 10 June 2023, or indeed by 26 March 2025, being 93 weeks and 4 days after the statutory compliance date for the premise.
Section109(2)(b) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage in that this provision states that the tenant cannot apply for exemplary damages for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. This breach occurred from 10 June 2023 and therefore the tenant was statutorily barred from applying for exemplary damages for this breach from 10 June 2024. The tenant made this application on 28 September 2025, well past the statutory timeframe to bring this claim. For this reason, I must dismiss the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages for this s45(1)(b) of the RTA breach but can award compensation for any proven healthy homes’ breaches. A. Insulation
[The tenant] claims that the landlord has failed to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
The Mint report shows: a. You can look through to unit 2 and all the ceiling insulation is only 100mm; b. The ceiling insulation above 1/10 is in a large area above the 120mm but this does not meet the standard; c. At least an area of 10m2 in the centre of the premise is at maximum 100mm and has gaps; d. The underfloor insulation has been done with polystyrene and the Mint assessor noticed a sheet of 25mm, which is too thin. He was unable to say how widespread the thin polystyrene insulation is, but it seems very local as most areas have 50mm or 60mm of polystyrene. He notes the thickness is not consistent and none of the polystyrene is fixed so there are many gaps, and a lot of sheets are falling out; e. The polystyrene underfloor insulation needs to be fixed and the gaps filled to meet the healthy homes standard.
The landlord confirmed that it was aware the ceiling and underfloor had insulation and it considered that the insulation material used met the standard. It accepted some of the insulation may have been moved as work was undertaken on the house and may not have been put back.
No healthy homes information was provided to the tenant with the tenancy agreement, and as such the tenant had no idea until Mint Auckland undertook the assessment that the insulation was as non-compliant as it turned out to be.
The landlord tried to discredit the Mint Auckland assessment results because the assessment results did not come in a full report with photographs like what a third-party company that specialises in healthy homes assessments usually produces.
Auckland Mint is a free government service that is made available to tenants to evaluate a property's compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards, ensuring the premise is warm, dry, and healthy for the tenant. Mint Auckland provides these assessments, completing a comprehensive check against the five standards (insulation, heating, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping). The assessment includes a report that details any necessary work required to meet compliance. It does not produce full comprehensive assessment reports such as those produced by Oncore, Healthy Homes NZ, or All Clear Group. These companies are engaged primarily by landlords to undertake comprehensive assessments and write detailed reports to give landlords assurance about where the property complies or does not comply with the healthy homes’ standards.
I am satisfied that the Mint report proves that the premise does not meet the insulation standard, and that the landlord has intentionally failed to take reasonable steps to find out if the premise meets the insulation standard or to remedy and breach of the insulation standard. I award a compensatory sum of $500.00 for this breach. B. Heating
[The tenant] claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the heating standard.
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 would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
There must be one or more fixed heaters that can directly heat the main living room.
The main living room is the largest room that is used for general, everyday living – for example a lounge, family room or dining room.
Heater(s) must be fixed (not portable) and must be at least 1.5 kW in heating capacity and meet the minimum heating capacity needed for the main living room. There are several options to calculate the heating capacity required for the main living room.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant says the fixed heater provided by the landlord fell off the wall at the beginning of the tenancy and had the landlord undertaken regular routine property inspections, she would have been made aware of this issue earlier than 12 January 2025.
Regardless of this repair and maintenance issue, Mint Auckland assessed the living room as requiring 4.5kW heating and due to the higher stud (2.8 metres) in the room that 5.4kW or 6.0kW would provide better. In New Zealand most studs are 2.4 metres.
The landlord confirmed the heater provided was 2.4kW and Ms Benson’s calculations, using the heating assessment tool, shows the lounge requires
8kW of heating, which is very clearly incorrect.
In this case I have determined that Sj Benson Trust Stephanie Jeanette Benson has committed an unlawful act by failing to ensure the premise met the heating standard by 10 June 2023 and that by the time the tenant had Mint Auckland undertake an assessment of the premise’s compliance against the heating standard, 93 weeks, and 4 days past the required compliance date. I award a compensatory sum of $500.00 for this breach. C. Ventilation
[The tenant] claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the heating standard.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The Mint Auckland report states that there is an extraction fan in the bathroom that is not ducted outside and that it looks like a 100mm duct the landlord wants to fit one. Additionally, the report notes that the rangehood is very old and does not seem to be powerful enough to extract cooking fumes as the assessor could hardly feel a pull when he turned it high. He also pointed out that the duct from the rangehood was not covered and was broken.
The tenant said there was no ventilation for cooking, so grime built up during the tenancy and that the assessor had told her the rangehood needed to be addressed as it was also a source of condensation. The tenant was also concerned that rats may have nested in the ducting and that may explain the lack of flow of the rangehood, but she was too scared to check this theory herself.
The landlord says her electrician plugged in the rangehood and it worked well and there was no issue with it. She stated that he did not test the flow to see if it was adequate to expel cooking fumes, nor did he check the ducting to see if it needed attention.
In this case I have determined that SJ Benson Trust, Stephanie Jeanette Benson as Trustee, has committed an unlawful act by failing to ensure the bathroom had an externally ducted and functioning extractor fan and that the rangehood was fit for purpose and met the ventilation standard by 10 June 2023. By the time the tenant had Mint Auckland undertake an assessment of the premise’s compliance against the ventilation standard, 93 weeks, and 4 days past the required compliance date. I award a compensatory sum of $500.00 for this breach. Draught Stopping
[The tenant] claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the draught stopping standard.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant has already proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to provide and maintain the premise, so it was free from draughts and that these draughts existed on 10 June 2023 when the premise was required to comply with the draught stopping standard.
I am satisfied that Sj Benson Trust Stephanie Jeanette Benson has committed an unlawful act by failing to ensure the premise met the draught stopping standard by 10 June 2023 and award a compensatory sum of $500.00 for this breach. Moisture Ingress and Drainage
[The tenant] claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the 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. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space if it is reasonably practical to do so.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The Mint Auckland report states there is no ground moisture barrier, and the premise is required to have one as there are three separated underfloor areas, two of which are concrete and one that is earth that requires a ground moisture barrier.
The landlord accepts this and says that it did its very best to meet the heathy homes standards and was under the mistaken belief the premise did not need the ground moisture barrier as there was a large gap on the carport area that allowed the area to ventilate. The landlord stated that the tenant had not told it would have had this breach remedied.
I am satisfied that SJ Benson Trust, Stephanie Jeanette Benson as Trustee, has committed an unlawful act by failing to ensure the premise met the moisture ingress and drainage standard by 10 June 2023 and award a compensatory sum of $500.00 for this breach. It is not the tenant’s responsibility to inform the landlord of heathy homes standards breaches. The landlord has a positive obligation to ensure a rental premise is compliant by the statutory date applicable to that tenancy. It did not do so in this case.
I note for completeness that I have taken the rent relief given by the landlord when considering the compensatory amounts awarded to the tenant. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
I have found that the landlord has committed 4 intentional breaches of s45(1)(b) of the RTA and 1 of s 45(1)(c) of the RTA within the 12 months prior to the tenant’s application to the Tribunal on 28 March 2025. These breaches resulted in the tenant living conditions that were unhealthy and that she experienced considerable periods of stress, inconvenience, and loss of the amenity she was paying rent to enjoy.
I find the landlord has committed these 5 unlawful acts intentionally.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations and that has shown such a cavalier attitude to the tenant’s many significant and ongoing plights both during the tenancy and during the hearing. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $2,400.00 exemplary damages to the tenant, being a quarter of the maximum penalty available. Has the landlord or its representatives unlawfully entered the premise and/or breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment/privacy?
[The tenant] claims the landlord has breached her and her son’s quiet enjoyment of the property and their privacy and has entered the premise without their consent.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010 considered the definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenant has raised a number of alleged breaches, I will address each one in chronological order. 12 January 2025
The tenant says that during the 12 January 2025 property inspection, the landlord made personal remarks about the tenant’s hygiene and how she kept the house. The tenant says that this then led to late night calls and texts badgering the tenant about her hygiene practices causing the rat and cockroach infestation.
The landlord denies this and Ms Benson says her texts have always been polite and that it was reasonable for her to talk about the black bags of rubbish under and at the back of the house.
I am satisfied that the parties’ relationship was tense by this time and the tenant was not pleased with the landlord’s response to the numerous repair and maintenance issues she was raising. I am also satisfied that this tension made it challenging for the parties to discuss any of the landlord’s issues with how the property was being maintained and that the tenant did not take the landlord’s feedback on the condition of the premise well. However, I do not find that this incident meets the threshold of being harassment of the tenant and dismiss this claim for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. 15 February 2025
The partes agreed that Ms Benson and her husband turned up unannounced with the stove on 15 February 2025 and that the tenant would not allow them access to the premise to leave the stove inside the house for a contractor to come and install at some later stage.
The landlord left the stove underneath the house under a tarpaulin and did not enter the house.
The tenant told the landlord that she could not enter the house without at least 24 hours’ notice and that she was breaching her quiet enjoyment of the premise by just showing up unannounced and hanging around the property looking for a place to leave the stove.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves that on the balance of probabilities, the incident occurred on 15 February 2025 and that Ms Benson did intentionally breach the tenant and her son’s quiet enjoyment of the premise when it was reasonably foreseeable that given the tension that had grown between the parties since the 12 January 2025 property inspection, that the tenant would not welcome an unplanned visit from Ms Benson and Mr Colgan with a stove. The tenant’s son says Ms Benson knocked on the door repeatedly trying to gain entry and was none to pleased about being denied entry into the house. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act by being insistent about trying to gain entry to the premise to avoid having to move the stove further from the truck to store it downstairs.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $375.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord knew it was reasonably foreseeable Ms Benson’s unscheduled and unannounced visit would result in breaches of the landlord’s obligation not to breach the tenant’s privacy and quiet enjoyment or to cause the tenant and her son trouble, worry and distress; b. The tenant and her son suffered distress, fear, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise she was paying to enjoy because of landlord’s breach; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the distress, fear, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise she was paying to enjoy; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. 5 May 2025
The tenant claims that she and her son had to leave the property on 5 May 2025 because of the landlord being verbally abusive to her when the electrician was at the premise. She says the issue escalated quickly when the tenant pointed out the power point issues, and the landlord became very arrogant and dismissive about the issue the tenant had been living with for some time and blamed the tenant for the faulty power points. The tenant responded to the landlord “you can’t blame me for things wrong in the house” and she says Ms Benson began to shake with anger and the tenant became frightened at the level of hostility being directed towards her and so she removed herself from the premise. Just before she left, she says the landlord confronted her about the heater and the landlord’s aggression increased further. The tenant’s son confirmed Ms Benson was in a fit of rage and was very scary and said aloud “these issues make me want to hit my husband”. The landlord denies she said this but did not deny the outburst. She states the tenant has exaggerated and that it was no more than a slight disagreement.
The landlord also stated the tenant, and her son had the day of the incident wrong and that the incident had taken place on 24 March 2025 when the landlord had come to put the oven in. Ms Benson did not deny there were issues between her and the tenant and that is why Mr Colgan had taken over dealing with the tenant. She was adamant that she “had never threatened to beat up my husband” and “tried to be relaxed and sociable”. She says she did understand why the tenant was upset about the oven as she had waited a long time for it. Further, Ms Benson says the tenant requested and required that she to come in and do this work and made it clear that Ms Benson’s husband was not welcome there. She claims things were a bit tense that day but there was no display of aggression on landlord’s part.
The tenant’s son says he was there, and he witnessed this incident, and the landlord was quite aggressive about the heater and the power points and that he was sure the date of the incident was 5 May 2025.
The tenant says this issue occurred well after she submitted her application to the Tribunal on 28 March 2025, so could not have been on 24 March 2025 as the landlord alleged.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves that on the balance of probabilities, the incident occurred on 5 May 2025 and that Ms Benson did intentional breach the tenant and her son’s quiet enjoyment of the premise when she was present overseeing some electrical work, thereby committing an unlawful act.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $375.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord engaged in a pattern of behaviour it knew was reasonably foreseeable would result in breaches of the landlord’s obligation not to breach the tenant’s privacy and quiet enjoyment or to cause the tenant and her son trouble, worry and distress that led to them having to leave their home while the long-awaited electrical work was being undertaken; b. The tenant and her son suffered distress, fear, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise she was paying to enjoy because of landlord’s breach; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the distress, fear, worry and loss of quiet enjoyment of the premise she was paying to enjoy; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. 14 May 2025
The tenant says the landlord walked into the house on 14 May 2025 at 10:20am and that the tenant’s son took a picture of the landlord and its contractor’s identification ID.
The landlord says it was due to come around, but tenant had to take her son to the doctor, and she told the landlord she would prefer that the landlord did not stay in the house on her own. The tenant says at this time the landlord was outside taking photos and that when she came back the landlord was in the house. She says her son came out and told her to stay in the car as he was concerned there may be another aggressive altercation between the tenant and Ms Benson.
Ms Benson says this date was the agreed date for the beginning of scheduled maintenance work and that the tenant took her son to doctor at 11:45am and asked the landlord to come back at 1pm when she got back home.
The landlord says it thought the contractor and Ms Benson could go in and assess the work required as they had already given the tenant notice of the visit.
Ms Benson says she went to the door with the contractor’s identification and the tenant’s son was there and agreed for them to go inside. She says they went in briefly and were going to go back later in the day. Further, she stated they were going to do the big window in one day, and it required three trades people, so the landlord had already decided to reschedule the work after the initial investigation of the window.
I am satisfied that the landlord had given the tenant prior notice of the visit and that it was more likely than not that the tenant’s son had consented to Ms Benson and the contractor entering the premise for a brief period to look at the window in the lounge to assess what contractors they required to fix it in one day. This claim is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. 24 May 2025
The tenant produced evidence that the landlord emailed her repeatedly on 24 May 2025, being a weekend day, to tell the tenant not to park in the neighbour’s way or in her parking place and had sent photographs telling her to move the car that was parked on the grass.
She says the landlord was very sarcastic about the issue raised by the neighbour and appeared to get some perverse satisfaction out of raising the situation with the tenant.
The tenant sent the landlord a video that proves she was not parked in the neighbour’s way or in her parking spot, but she says she still received a constant barrage of emails and calls from the landlord that breached her quiet enjoyment.
The tenant asked who was wandering around the property taking photographs of her private life and that she found that intrusive and disconcerting. She confirmed there had been a lot of politics about the carpark out the front of the house, as the neighbour’s carpark was located right in front of the tenant’s house and crossed across the outside of the tenant’s lounge, son’s bedroom, and entry point. She stated the neighbour, who used to be Ms Benson’s partner, came across rude and confrontational. She says she was warned by Ms Benson that neighbour was a difficult person when the tenant first moved in. The tenant says this warning was accurate as the neighbour refused to mow the lawns and this left the tenant doing lawns for both properties. In addition, there were nonstop issues about the car parking.
The landlord says all she did was forwarded the image to the tenant that the neighbour had sent and that the photograph showed the tenant’s car was parked at an odd angle that was making it difficult for the neighbour to show prospective tenants her half of the property. That is why the landlord sent the email asking her to move her car. Further, when the tenant sent back the video, she thanked the tenant for moving the car and she confirmed that at no time did she ever go around to the property, and she had not taken the photograph.
I am satisfied that the landlord reasonably followed up with the tenant the issue the neighbour had raised and that this was not a breach of the tenant’s privacy, nor does it meet the definition of harassment. This claim is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. 9 May 2025
Around 9 May 2025, the tenant says the landlord refused to give her a reference to support her to find a new home. The tenant claims she was harassed by this refusal as the landlord used the back rent as an excuse not to give her a reference.
The landlord is not under any legal requirement to provide the tenant with a reference to support her search for new rental accommodation.
The landlord says she did give a reference to the tenant in May 2023 for study purposes. The tenant says she never received it. The landlord says she drafted it but can’t remember finalizing and sending it.
I am satisfied that this issue is not a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premise nor is it a breach of her privacy or harassment as defined above. This claim is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Did the landlord provide the tenant with a written and signed tenancy agreement prior to the commencement of the tenancy?
[The tenant] claims the landlord has not ensured the written tenancy agreement was signed and a copy provided to the tenant before the commencement of the tenancy.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord confirmed that she did not provide the tenant with a signed copy of the written tenancy agreement before the tenancy commenced and in doing so she had committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
However, this breach occurred on 10 February 2023, more than 12 months before the tenant’s application to the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal is statutorily barred from awarding the tenant any exemplary damages for the breach.
I award the tenant $100.00 compensation in recognition of this breach. Did the landlord provide the statutorily required healthy homes, smoke alarm and insurance information in the tenancy agreement?
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 13A(1A), 13A(1CA) and 13A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1A) the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord that describes whether or not there is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, any insulation installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises and the details of the location, type, and condition of all insulation that is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises.
Under s13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a compliance statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the five healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions. These five standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping. This provision also requires the landlord to record how many smoke alarms are in the premise, when the smoke alarms were last tested and when they expire.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
If the landlord is unable to provide some or all the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 13A(2) states the landlord must include in the tenancy agreement the following information about insurance of the premises: (a)if the premises are not insured, a statement that they are not insured; and (b)if the premises are insured, a statement— (i)setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and (ii)informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request (except that the statement need not inform the tenant of this if the landlord has already provided to the tenant a copy of the policy in accordance with section 45(2B) or 66J(5)).
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) and/or 13A(2) of the RTA obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord confirmed that she did not provide the tenant with a the healthy homes compliance statement, the detailed healthy homes information about whether the premise complied with the healthy homes standards at the commencement of the tenancy and what work needed to be undertaken so it complied by 10 June 2023 and did not provide the insurance information for the relevant policy to the limitation of the tenant’s liability for damage to the premise during the tenancy. In doing so, Ms Benson accepted that the landlord had committed an unlawful act. She says the breaches were not intentional and that she was not aware of these landlord obligations.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act and that, although the Tribunal is statutorily barred from ordering exemplary damages for this breach, it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $375.00 compensation because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known that she is required by to provide the tenants with healthy homes, smoke alarm and insurance information with a written tenancy agreement; b. The tenant is entitled to rely on her statutory right to receive information about: i. whether the premise was healthy homes compliant and if it wasn’t, was it exempt from these requirements; ii. whether the premise has compliant smoke alarms, where they are located, when they were last tested and when they expire; and iii. If the landlord has tenant insurance that covers tenant related damage to the premise, what the policy covers and the excess that applies. c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive compensation for the landlords’ breach; d. it is in the public interest for the tenant to receive compensation as a disincentive to the landlord for breaching its obligations to ensure the tenant had healthy homes compliance information, smoke alarm information and insurance information given to her prior to the commencement of the tenancy so that she could make an informed decision whether or not to rent a non-compliant premise. She was denied that opportunity; and e. .This breach occurred on 10 February 2023, more than 12 months before the tenant’s application to the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal is statutorily barred from awarding the tenant any exemplary damages for the breach.
I award the tenant $375.00 compensation in recognition of these breaches and the impact of these breaches the tenant’s ability to make an informed decision whether to sign up to the tenancy when the premise was not healthy homes compliant, and no effort had been made by the landlord to ascertain what work needed to be done to ensure compliance by 10 June 2023.

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of the filing fees

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with her claims, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded with its claims. Its application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name suppression
The landlord and the tenant apply for 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.
The tenant has substantially succeeded in her proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct.
Non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details is ordered.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct in relation to this tenancy and that potential tenants should be aware of the landlord’s conduct in this tenancy when deciding whether to rent a premise from SJ Benson Trust though Ms Stephanie Jeanette Benson, as Trustee or the Trust’s professional trustee.
The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5268439 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5268439 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions