What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5272599 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 5272599?

Compensation: $2,100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5272599?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5272599?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12803484-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5272599 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 5272599?

Compensation: $2,100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5272599?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5272599?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12803484-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

5A Rebecca Rise, Hillsborough, Auckland 1042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5272599 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5272599 — net $3,927.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to end of tenancy	$200.00		Rent arrears to end of tenancy
Compensation for lack of exclusive use of garage		$2,100.00	Compensation for lack of exclusive use of garage
Exemplary damages: Healthy Homes breaches and		$2,000.00	Healthy Homes breaches and
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	70. I consider that it is fair to take into account the fact that this was the landlord’s first tenancy and that the issues were to some extent due to inexperi…
Total award	$200.00	$4,127.00
Net award		$3,927.00
Bond		$1,770.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,927.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5272599 — net $3,927.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to end of tenancy	$200.00		Rent arrears to end of tenancy
Compensation for lack of exclusive use of garage		$2,100.00	Compensation for lack of exclusive use of garage
Exemplary damages: Healthy Homes breaches and		$2,000.00	Healthy Homes breaches and
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	70. I consider that it is fair to take into account the fact that this was the landlord’s first tenancy and that the issues were to some extent due to inexperi…
Total award	$200.00	$4,127.00
Net award		$3,927.00
Bond		$1,770.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,927.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,770.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Vandana Choudhary and Rajesh Choudhary must pay [The tenant/s] $3,927.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Choudhary confirmed that she had authority to appear on behalf of, and represent, Rajesh Choudhary at the hearing. The tenant appeared with a support person. Background
These claims concern the tenancy of a self-contained flat attached to the house where the landlord lives. The tenancy began on 8 July 2024 and ended on 28 April 2025. Rent was $550 per week.
A family member had previously lived in the flat, and when they moved out the landlord decided to rent it out. They placed an advertisement on Facebook Marketplace, the tenant attended a viewing, and the parties agreed that the tenant would move in.
No tenancy agreement was signed. A “boarding house” tenancy agreement was prepared by Mr Choudhary on the day that the tenant moved in but the tenant did not sign it as she did not agree that it was a boarding house.
I have proceeded on the basis that there was an oral tenancy agreement. Based on the communications between the parties I consider that both Mr and Ms Choudhary were acting as landlords and so they are both named as parties to this claim. In this decision however, for ease of reference, I refer to them both as “the landlord”.
On 26 May 2025 2025 the tenant filed a claim seeking refund of her bond and orders in relation to Healthy Homes Standards (no statement provided, no heating, draughts coming up from garage, leak in foyer, no smoke alarm/s and unsafe access) and in relation to failure to give receipts for rent paid in cash, harassing the tenant, giving invalid notice and refusing to allow her to collect her belongings until she agreed to sign a bond refund form.
A preliminary jurisdiction hearing was held on 27 August 2025. The Tribunal found that the tenancy address was a separate premises for the purpose of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (and not a flatting or boarding situation as argued by the landlord) and so the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s claim.
On 7 September 2025 the landlord filed claims seeking the following orders: a. Rent arrears - $850.00 b. Bathroom door damage - $500.00. c. Dog damage to floor and walls - $10,000. Onus and evidence
As with all claims that come before the Tribunal, the onus is on the party bringing the claim to prove their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities). The Tribunal will consider all of the evidence filed and produced at the hearing, including the parties’ own description of events and any supporting/opposing documentary evidence such as correspondence (texts, messages and emails) and photos/video.
For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence produced and referred to during the hearing. However the parties can be assured that I have carefully considered all of the evidence when making this decision. The landlords’ claims Rent
The landlord claimed that they were owed $850 in arrears at the end of the tenancy but the rent summary provided did not run from the start of the tenancy but instead began on 19 August 2024, approximately six weeks after the tenancy began. There was no running total of arrears.
The tenant said that she had paid her first week in cash, referred to in written correspondence before the start of the tenancy. She said that, taking into this amount (for which she did not receive a receipt) she had calculated that rent was in arrears by $200.00.
Ms Choudhary had not prepared the rent summary and so was not able to assist the Tribunal to explain how the arrears had occurred.
In the circumstances the claim is not proven, but the Tribunal orders the amount accepted as owing by the tenant. Bathroom door damage/Dog damage to floors and walls
The landlord said that the bathroom door was damaged, and sought $500.00 in compensation, and that the tenant’s dogs had damaged the floor and walls, and sought $10,000.00 in compensation.
A landlord must prove that damage was caused during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If the landlord is able to do so, then the tenant must prove that they did not carelessly or intentionally cause the damage.
The landlord did not have invoices for either of the amounts claimed and did not have photos of the damage or any photos from the start of the tenancy. The landlord only submitted photos taken after this tenancy, once a new tenant had moved in. There was no damage shown in the photos.
The landlord has not proven that damage occurred during the tenancy. The landlord’s claims for compensation are not proven and are dismissed. The tenant’s claims The garage
The tenant said that the property was advertised as having a garage but that when she arrived she found that another tenant stored his bike there, and that the garage was kept permanently open and that there was no key, and so she could not safely store her possessions there. She said that she paid the electricity for the garage as it was under her unit.
The tenant said that one of the reasons she took the property was that it had a garage where she could store her things.
The landlord said that the garage was not part of the tenancy as it was a shared garage kept open with no key.
Neither party had a copy of the original advertisement, but the tenant produced copies of a message sent to the landlord on 3 July 2025, just prior to the viewing, stating: “Thank-you very much for your time today I love the view and the photos I have seen the place looks very nice. The garage is appealing to me as I have tools so that would work well for me”
However on the day the tenant moved in, and was provided with the boarding house agreement to sign, she sent a message to the landlord saying” “...This is the first time you mentioned that this is a boarding house? I didn’t release that you had that many tenants on the property. When it was advertised on Facebook it said the garage was part of the agreement. I’ve just risked everything by proceeding to move in to your property and out of mine, I was under the impression I was renting a much smaller place but that it came with a garage...I was excited but also nervous of the size difference but I found comfort in thinking it was one bedroom with a garage that I would be able to use as secure storage”
The landlord replied the same day, approximately half an hour later, stating: “Garage is yours only no one else’s – yours is separate unit itself with all rooms advertised. No one shares your unit at all... Please use garage as fully you want don’t worry it’s yours”
I am satisfied that the parties had agreed that the garage was part of the tenancy but the tenant did not get exclusive use and could not lock the garage or safely store her possessions there.
I consider that the tenant is entitled to some compensation as she did not get exclusive use of the garage as agreed. She did have some use, but it was not secure. As the total rent payable per week was $550.00 I consider compensation of $50.00 per week to be reasonable. This was a tenancy of 42 weeks, and so I order compensation of $2,100.00. Healthy Homes Standards/Maintenance
The tenant said that there was no statement about Healthy Homes Standards included in the boarding house agreement and so she had no idea about whether the property complied.
She said that she had concerns because the boarding house agreement stated:
The tenant then said that there was no smoke alarm, only a fitting where one had previously been, no fixed heat source in the lounge, that the garage below was constantly open and so the property was very cold, there was a leak in the foyer and access outside her bedroom was unsafe as she had to walk out onto a make-shift step constructed out of a plastic pallet and tiles.
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.
In this case the landlord did provide a tenancy agreement but it was not in the correct form and was never signed. This meant that there was confusion as to the type of tenancy and the terms, which led to further issues, discussed below.
Under section 13(1)(CA) RTA a landlord must also include a statement about the current level of compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards and the compliance date for the property..
Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maxim of $750. See section 13A(1F).
Section 45 also provides that landlord must: a. must comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) which set out minimum standards for heating, insulation, moisture and drainage; b. comply with all regulations requiring landlords to ensure that there are qualifying smoke alarms installed 1 ; c. provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair. 1 See Regulation 5 of the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986
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.
This tenancy began on 8 July 2024 and so the compliance date for the HHS for this property was 5 November 2024. The landlord’s obligations to provide smoke alarms and to maintain the property were requirements from the start of the tenancy.
The landlord said that they were never asked for any HHS information and that the tenant only raised issues after the end of the tenancy and when their relationship broke down.
The landlord said that they were not required to comply with the HHS because this was a flatting/boarding situation. However the landlord conceded during the hearing that the Tribunal had already determined that this was a tenancy of separate premises, and that the obligations of the landlord under the RTA did apply.
The landlord said that the property was in very good condition but agreed that there was no fixed heat source in the lounge and no smoke alarm. They said that there was no requirement to provide these as the tenant did not ask for them.
The landlord has breached their obligations by not having an appropriate written tenancy agreement including compliance with the HHS, and by failing to provide a smoke alarm and fixed heating. The landlord was under an obligation to provide these (whether or not the tenant asked for them) but did not.
There was not enough evidence provided for me to make findings on the other issues. In relation to the flooding, I note that this occurred on one occasion less than two weeks before the tenant moved out and was not reported to the landlord.
The tenant is entitled to exemplary damages. I consider the appropriate level of exemplary damages in a separate section later in this decision. Landlord not giving receipts for cash
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not issued a receipt for rent. She says that she paid some rent in cash but did not receive a receipt and that there was confusion at the end of the tenancy as to how much was owing.
A landlord must give a written receipt immediately for any rent paid by cash. See section 29(1) and (2)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 29(5) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There was not enough evidence provided for me to determine whether or not there has been a breach. However, as the payment of rent was not well documented in the rent summary, I have given the tenant the benefit of the doubt when making an award of rent arrears. Invalid termination notices
The tenant said that the landlord only gave her 21 days’ notice terminating the tenancy, on the basis that a family member needed to move back into the property.
Section 51 RTA provides that a landlord must give 42 days’ notice if they require the property for a family member.
The tenant provided copies of messages between Ms Choudhary and herself. These prove that on 29 March 2025 Ms Choudhary sent her a message “...giving you official notice of three weeks from today 29.3.2025. Since [family member] intends to move back home, we meet you to vacate the house as soon as possible. Earliest possible than 3 weeks would be better”.
The tenant responded on multiple occasions telling the landlord that 42 days’ notice was required but the landlord insisted that she leave and the tenant moved out on 29 April 2025.
The landlord was in breach of section 51 RTA as they did not give the required notice. The notice was invalid. The tenant could have applied to set aside the notice under section 77(2)(a) RTA. Harassment by landlord
[The tenant/s]
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.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant produced a copy of all messages with Ms Choudhary during the tenancy. These show quite frequent messages from Ms Choudhary, sometimes late at night and early in the morning, although there are also large gaps with no messages, sometimes for weeks at a time. The tenant was clearly frustrated by many of the messages, which became particularly insistent towards the end of the tenancy, when Ms Choudhary continually insisted on a 21 day notice period and responded to the tenant’s insistence on her rights with comments such as “you have to move out, whether you like or not, as [family member] wants to move in” and “don’t play emotional drama here, it’s enough of your drama – give me your leaving date”.
In my view the messages from January 2025 until the tenant moved out did reach the level of harassment. The tenant’s responses were measured an appropriate, only to be met with escalating and repeated insistence from the landlord that the tenant move out ahead of the required time frame.
The tenant is entitled to an award of exemplary damages, which are considered later in this decision. Refusal to return belongings
The tenant said that she left pot plants behind and that the landlord told her that she could not collect them until she had completed the bond form. She said that she came to collect them anyway, and Ms Choudhary parked her car at the long driveway forcing her to make multiple trips on foot.
The landlord denied doing so. She said that the tenant gave her virtually no notice and that she did not try and obstruct the collection.
I am not satisfied that this claim is proved. The tenant did provide a picture of the landlord’s car in the driveway, but due to the short notice given for collection I am not satisfied that the landlord intentionally obstructed the tenant from collecting her pots. Exemplary damages
I have found that the landlord has committed the following unlawful acts, for which exemplary damages are available in the following amounts: a. did not provide an appropriate written tenancy agreement and statement setting out the level of compliance with the HHS ($750.00); b. has breached the HHS by not having fixed heating and did not have a smoke alarm ($7,200.00); c. harassed the tenant ($3,000.00).
The Tribunal may make an order for exemplary damages having regard to the following factors: a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the tenant; d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make an order.
In my view these breaches by the landlord all stemmed from the landlord’s lack of experience and understanding of the relevant law.
The landlord appeared to think that they could circumvent the usual provisions of the RTA by claiming that this was a flatting or boarding situation. Seen in that light, the breaches are intentional to some degree.
It is usual in the Tribunal to award approximately 1/3 of the maximum exemplary damages on the first occasion that the landlord breaches the RTA.
The impact of the lack of HHS statement on the tenant was fairly minimal. The lack of fixed heating would have impacted the tenant for the first few months of the tenancy but from that point on the tenancy was during the summer months. The lack of smoke alarm was a serious safety issue. The harassment by the landlord was clearly of the greatest concern, as the tenant was essentially forced out of the tenancy early in stressful circumstances.
I consider that it is fair to take into account the fact that this was the landlord’s first tenancy and that the issues were to some extent due to inexperience. Taking that into account, together with the impact of the breaches on the tenant, the fairly short duration of the tenancy, and the public interest in ensuring that landlords comply with the provisions of the RTA, I consider a total overall award of $2,000.00 to be a fair and appropriate award in all the circumstances. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant is also entitled to an order for name suppression pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5272599 — Healthy homes at 5A Rebecca Rise, Hillsborough, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5272599 — Healthy homes at 5A Rebecca Rise, Hillsborough, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions