What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5281639?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,100.00 (6535624-001) to Shyla

How much money was awarded in case 5281639?

Property Damage: $1,140.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5281639?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5281639?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12399395-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5281639?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,100.00 (6535624-001) to Shyla

How much money was awarded in case 5281639?

Property Damage: $1,140.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5281639?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5281639?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12399395-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

90 Medallion Drive, Oteha, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5281639 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5281639 — net $1,240.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to include HHS statement	$100.00	Failure to include HHS statement
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with HHS: heating	$1,140.00	Failure to comply with HHS: heating
Net award	$1,240.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,240.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5281639 — net $1,240.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to include HHS statement	$100.00	Failure to include HHS statement
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with HHS: heating	$1,140.00	Failure to comply with HHS: heating
Net award	$1,240.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,240.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,100.00 (6535624-001) to Shyla Sunandini Pillay immediately.
Taylormade Property Management Limited must pay Shyla Sunandini Pillay $1,240.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
Shyla Sunandini Pillay’s claims relating to market rent and unlawful residential premises are dismissed.
Taylormade Property Management Limited’s claims for compensation for damage are dismissed.

Reasons

Introduction

Shyla Sunandini Pillay (the Tenant) lived at 90 Medallion Drive, Oteha, Auckland (the Premises) owned by Rahim Mardhani (the Owner) and managed by Taylormade Property Management Limited (the Property Manager) (together, the Landlord) for just over a year.
The Tenant says the Landlord failed to provide a statement of compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) with the tenancy agreement, and that the Premises did not meet the HHS in relation to heating. The Tenant also says the rent increase that was to come into effect on 9 August 2025 rent was above market rent and that the two-bedroom granny flat was an unlawful residential premises.
In a cross-application, the Landlord seeks compensation for damage the Landlord alleges the Tenant caused to the cooktop and underfloor heating in the bathroom. The Landlord also seeks six weeks’ rent in compensation for lost rent due to the bathroom repairs necessary.
The Landlord accepts he failed to provide a statement of compliance with HHS with the tenancy agreement, but otherwise denies the Tenant’s claims.
The Tenant denies all of the Landlord’s claims.
The issues I have to determine are: a. Should the Landlord pay the Tenant exemplary damages for failing to provide a statement of compliance with HHS? b. Did the Landlord fail to meet the HHS in relation to heating, and if so, should the Landlord pay the Tenant exemplary damages? c. Did the Landlord increase the rent to an amount that exceeds market rent by a substantial amount? d. Was the Premises an unlawful residential premises? e. Is the Tenant responsible for damage to the cooktop? f. Is the Tenant responsible for damage to the bathroom underfloor heating? g. Should the Tenant compensate the Landlord for loss of rent? h. Is either party entitled to reimbursement of the application fee? i. To whom should the bond be refunded?
On 11 September 2025, the Tenant, the Owner and the Property Manager attended the hearing at North Shore District Court. The Tribunal’s approach to the issues
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim establish their claim “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction 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. Should the Landlord pay the Tenant exemplary damages for failing to provide a statement of compliance with HHS?
Shyla Sunandini Pillay says the Landlord breached their obligations by failing to include a statement in the tenancy agreement that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the HHS. 1 Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. 2
The Landlord accepts they did not include the required statement in the tenancy agreement, therefore, I find the Landlord committed an unlawful act.
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. 3 1 Section 13(1CA) of the Act. 2 Section 45(1F) and Schedule 1A of the Act. 3 Section 109(3) of the Act.
The Landlord says he failed to include the required statement because he was a first-time landlord and this was the first property he had owned in New Zealand. The Landlord says he was not aware of the requirement to include the HHS statement and that he found the HHS scheme confusing.
I find the Landlord committed the unlawful act intentionally. The Landlord chose to rent out his property and in doing so, it was incumbent upon him to make himself familiar with a landlord’s obligations under the Act. Ignorance is no excuse.
There is public interest in holding landlords accountable for such failures but I also accept that, in this case, the Landlord’s failure had minimal impact on the Tenant. I therefore award nominal exemplary damages in the amount of $100. Did the Landlord fail to meet the HHS in relation to heating, and if so, should the

Landlord pay the Tenant exemplary damages?

Shyla Sunandini Pillay claims the Landlord breached their obligation to comply with the HHS regarding heating. 4 Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. 5
The heating standard requires landlords provide one or more qualifying heaters, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level dependent upon the size of the space. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater can be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator is available to help landlords determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises. 6 The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Compliance dates for HHS vary depending on the tenancy. As this tenancy was a private rental which commenced after 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, it must comply within 120 days of the commencement of the tenancy. The tenancy commenced on 1 June 2024, therefore, the compliance date for this tenancy was 29 September 2024.
The Tenant says when she moved into the two-bedroom premises there was no heating. The Tenant says the Landlord ordered a 2.4kW panel heater which was delivered to the Premises on 16 December 2024. 7 The Tenant says the 4 Section 45(1)(bb) of the Act. 5 Section 45(1A) of the Act. 6 Found at: https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/ Landlord did not install the panel heater (that is, attach it to the wall) and the Tenant did not have space for the heater to be on wheels. The Tenant says the panel heater remained in the garage of the main dwelling (occupied by another tenant) for the entire tenancy.
The Landlord confirmed no heating was installed in the Premises at the start of the tenancy. The Landlord also confirmed a panel heater was ordered online and delivered on 16 December 2024. The Property Manager said she “hounded” the Owner to have the panel heater installed within the first three months of the tenancy, however the Property Manager said the Owner did not agree to it being installed by being attached to the wall. The Property Manager says in May or June 2025, a contractor attended the Premises to “install” the panel heater, however, they did not fix the heater to the wall, rather they set it up on wheels. 8
The HHS require a landlord provide one or more fixed heaters that can heat the main living room. Portable heaters are not an acceptable alternative. Nor is it satisfactory for the Landlord (or any landlord) to say the Tenant did not want the heater installed or did not give permission for the Landlord to install it. 9
I find the Landlord committed an unlawful act as a qualifying heater was not installed within the first 120 days of the tenancy. 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. 10
The Landlord was aware of the requirement to provide heating – the Property Manager says she reminded the Owner of the requirement to install heating within the first 120 days of the tenancy. The Landlord’s decision not to install the panel heater by fixing it to the wall was intentional. The fact the Tenant did not provide access, or had personal items and furniture in the home, is no excuse.
The impact was that the Tenant, who lived in the Premises with her young daughter, had no heating in the home for the entire tenancy. The Tenant did not give evidence of how the heating impacted her and her daughter’s comfort in the home, but I accept that it would have meant they had to arrange other heating and/or lived in a cold home through the winter months. I note there is 7 As recorded in text messages between the Owner and Tenant. 8 The type of panel heater was designed to be operated either free-standing (using the wheels that came with the heater) or by fixing it to a wall. 9 Section 48(2)(cb) of the Act provides that a landlord has a right of entry for the purpose of complying with the HHS at any time between 8am and 7pm of any day after giving the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason at least 24 hours prior to the entry. 10 Section 109(3) of the Act. public interest in ensuring all landlords comply with the HHS requirements to provide heating.
Considering those factors, I have determined it is appropriate that the Landlord pay the Tenant $1,140 in exemplary damages for the failure to provide heating. That is calculated at compensation of $20 per week for the duration of the 57- week tenancy. Did the Landlord increase the rent to an amount that exceeds market rent by a substantial amount?
Shyla Sunandini Pillay claims the Landlord increased the rent to an amount that exceeds market rent by a substantial amount. 11
On 6 June 2025, the Landlord served the Tenant with a notice giving the Tenant 60 days’ notice that the rent would increase, from $585 per week to $610 per week, effective from 9 August 2025.
However, the tenancy came to an end on 7 July 2025, therefore the rent increase was not been put into place and the Tenant has not paid (and will not pay) rent at the increased amount.
The Tribunal cannot adjudicate disputes that are moot. 12 If there is no practical need for an order, the application must be dismissed as moot. That is the case here and I dismiss the Tenant’s claim that the rent increase exceeded market rent.

Was the Premises an unlawful residential premises?

The Tribunal has the power to make a range of orders if the evidence before the Tribunal establishes that the premises are, or were at any material time, “unlawful residential premises”. 13
Where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful, the Tribunal may order the return of all rent paid by the tenant, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. The Tribunal may also make a work order requiring the landlord to remove any impediment to lawful occupation or to comply with any building, health or safety requirements. 11 Section 25(1) of the Act. 12 Body Corporate 375933 v Tenancy Tribunal and Wellington Waterfront Luxury Apartment Limited [2017] NZHC 1619. 13 Section 78A of the Act.
The Tribunal may make any of these orders on its own initiative, even if the tenant has not applied for a particular order. 14
The public policy behind the introduction of s78A was to discourage landlords from renting out properties that were, for example, unconsented or unlawful and had therefore never been subject to the need to meet legal requirements to ensure their safe and healthy occupation by tenants.
The Tribunal has on many prior occasions considered whether or not premises are unlawful and three broad (though non-exhaustive) categories have been identified: 15 a. Unconsented premises: meaning premises where there has been no building consent or resource consent for the premises at all. b. Premises where an abatement notice or dangerous and insanitary building notice has been issued by Council. c. Premises where garages, basement conversions or parts of premises that are part of a larger household unit have been converted for residential use and then rented out as a separate household unit, without Council consent as to the change of use.
In this case, the Tenant gave evidence that the two-bedroom flat which she rented was a “granny flat” situated on the ground floor of the two-storey main dwelling. Another tenant occupied the main dwelling. The Tenant had external access to her flat and did not share any access or facilities with the tenant in the main dwelling. The Tenant said her flat, which consisted of two bedrooms, an open living room and kitchen, and bathroom with laundry, could be accessed from the main dwelling via an internal door which could be locked. The Tenant said her main concern was that she did not have a separate letterbox, so any mail or deliveries went to the main dwelling.
Of greater concern to the Tribunal was the evidence the Tenant gave that her unit was connected to the main dwelling by what appeared to her to be a normal internal door. Questions arise as to whether the unit the Tenant exclusively occupied met all Building Code requirements for a separate household unit.
The Owner says he purchased the Premises in April 2024 and has not made any changes to the Premises since purchase. The Owner says the Premises was marketed as having a self-contained granny flat, 16 and was built in 2006 by 14 Section 78A(2) defines the meaning of “unlawful residential premises” and sections (3)(a), (4) and (5) of the Act set out the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to make orders. 15 Tenant v Presland and Co Trustee Company [2021] NZTT 4290197 at [94]. 16 The Premises’ March 2024 listing document was provided by the Owner. the previous owner. 17 The Owner says he believed the self-contained granny flat could be rented out as a separate unit to the main dwelling.
The Owner stated he has not made any application to the Council for change of use prior to renting out the major and minor dwellings as two separate flats. 18 The Owner was not aware whether a firewall had been installed between the Tenant’s unit and the main dwelling. 19
In this case, I was not presented with evidence by either party to confirm whether the Premises was designated a Sleeping Single Home or Sleeping Residential. 20 I was also not presented with evidence to indicate whether or not the Premises had a firewall between the minor dwelling and main dwelling (as required if Sleeping Residential) – the evidence of both parties was that they did not know.
While there is no burden of proof on the Tenant to establish a claim that a premises is an unlawful residential premise, there must be sufficient evidence before the Tribunal in respect of any claim within its jurisdiction. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure that the Premises was an unlawful residential premises, but there must be sufficient evidence to establish that it is likely the Premises was an unlawful residential premises.
In this case, there is simply no evidence before the Tribunal to confirm the designation for the Premises, or whether a firewall had been installed. That information would be available to either party, by applying to the Auckland Council for a copy of the Land Information Memorandum (LIM) report.
In the absence of any evidence proving it is more likely than not that the premises was an unlawful residential premises, I dismiss the Tenant’s claim. 17 An application form for building consent was provided dated 29 March 2006. 18 Schedule of the Building (Specified Systems, Change the Use, and Earthquake-prone Buildings) Regulations 2005 designates premises for different uses: Sleeping Single Home (SH) for detached dwellings where people live as a single household or family, including attached self- contained spaces such as granny flats when occupied by a member of the same family, and, Sleeping Residential (SR) for attached and multi-unit residential dwellings, including household units attached to spaces or dwellings with the same or other uses. A change in use from SH to SR would mean the Premises would change from being one “household unit” as an SH, to two (or more) “household units” as an SR, as defined by the Building Code cl.A2. 19 If the Premises has more than one household unit it must comply with clause C6.1(c) of the Building Code which requires: Structural systems in buildings must be constructed to maintain structural stability during fire so that there is a low probability of direct or consequential damage to adjacent household units or other property. 20 See definitions at fn.18.

Is the Tenant responsible for damage to the cooktop?

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, a 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. 21
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, a 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). 22 Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, a tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). 23 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of a tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 24
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. 25 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. 26
The Landlord says a cooktop in the kitchen of the Premises at the start of the tenancy was damaged by the Tenant, in that it no longer had three rubber feet at the end of the tenancy.
In the Landlord’s cross-application as filed, the Landlord did not provide any evidence showing the condition of the cooktop at the start of the tenancy. During the hearing, the Landlord filed two photos taken on 26 February 2025 which show the cooktop situated on the kitchen benchtop with a pot sitting on it. The rubber feet of the cooktop are not visible in the two photographs. The Landlord says the cooktop is sitting flat on the benchtop because (the Tribunal should infer) the three missing rubber feet were in place at that time.
In support of the submission the tenant caused the alleged damage, during the hearing, the Landlord produced a 16-second video taken on 7 July 2025. 27 The 21 Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act. 22 Section 49B(3)(a) of the Act. 23 Section 49B(3)(b) of the Act. 24 Section 49B(3A)(a) of the Act. 25 Section 49B(1) of the Act. 26 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 27 The Landlord said the video file was too large to email to the registry. video showed a person turning the cooktop over to show where the Landlord says the missing rubber feet should have been.
No evidence was presented to prove the cost of the cooktop when purchased, nor the cost of repair or purchasing a replacement.
The Tenant denies causing damage to the cooktop.
I am not satisfied the Landlord has proved damage was caused to the cooktop during the tenancy, nor that it is more than fair wear and tear. Without evidence to prove the rubber feet were in place at the start of the tenancy (that is, in June 2024) the Landlord has not proved damage occurred during the tenancy.
Even if the Landlord had proved the cooktop was damaged, I would have dismissed the claim on the basis the Landlord has not proved they have incurred the claimed cost to replace or repair the cooktop.

Is the Tenant responsible for damage to the bathroom underfloor heating?

The law as set out at paragraphs 46 – 48 above apply to this claim also.
The Landlord says the thermostat and underfloor heating in the bathroom were working at the start of the tenancy but were not working at the end of the tenancy. The Landlord says the Tenant (or her brother) did something to the thermostat and/or wiring which damaged the underfloor heating. The Landlord seeks compensation of $6,072.45 from the Tenant based on a quote dated 25 August 2025 for work removing all tiling in the bathroom, installing new underfloor heating and installing new waterproofing and tiling.
The Landlord says he called his insurer to enquire as to whether this damage would be covered by insurance and was told it was not covered. The Landlord has not filed a claim with his insurer.
The Landlord says he does not know how old the underfloor heating is. He says it was present when he purchased the Premises in April 2024. The application for building consent supplied by the Landlord indicates it was built in or about 2006.
The Landlord says when he inspected the Premises on 7 July 2025, after the Tenant had moved out, the underfloor heating was not working. The Landlord produced a video taken that day, watched by all parties during the hearing, showing the Landlord pressing the buttons on the thermostat. In the video, the screen of the thermostat was blank.
The Tenant says when she received her first power bill in July 2024 she was surprised how high it was. Over text messages with the Property Manager starting on 10 July 2024, the Tenant says the Property Manager suggested she check if the bathroom’s underfloor heating was on. The Tenant took a photo of the thermostat and sent it to the Property Manager showing the screen was blank so she was unable to turn it off.
The Tenant says on 15 July 2024 the Property Manager sent her instructions (a link to a YouTube video) showing how to turn the underfloor heating off, but the Tenant said it was for a different model and did not apply to the model in the Premises.
In a further exchange (with either the Property Manager or the Owner), the Tenant said she was advised to remove the battery from the thermostat. The Tenant said she attempted to do that but could not as there was a clip preventing the battery being removed. The Tenant said she asked her brother, who is an electrician, to assist her and he removed the face of the thermostat and unplugged (did not cut) the wire connecting the thermostat.
The Tenant said this solved the issue for her, in that the underfloor heating turned off and that is how it remained until the end of the tenancy. The Tenant advised the Property Manager of the steps she (and her brother) had taken. The Tenant says before she moved out, her brother re-connected the wire he had unplugged and she said the underfloor heating began heating up but the thermostat remained blank.
The Landlord produced one photo of the thermostat which shows the casing had begun to yellow with age. The Landlord alleges the work done by the Tenant, or her brother, damaged the thermostat and/or underfloor heating but has not produced any evidence in support of that allegation. No photos were produced to show that anything in the thermostat, or its wiring, was broken or cut during the tenancy. The Landlord did not produce any evidence in the form of a report or opinion from a qualified electrician to support his allegations.
It appears to me that, given the thermostat and/or underfloor heating is likely to be almost 20 years old now (if installed when the Premises was built in 2006) it is equally as likely that the underfloor heating failed due to age, that is, that it stopped working as a result of fair wear and tear. That is consistent with the Tenant’s evidence that the screen of the thermostat was blank as shown in the photograph sent to the Property Manager on or about 10 July 2024.
I am not satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant caused damage to the thermostat or underfloor heating during the tenancy, nor that it is more than fair wear and tear. I therefore dismiss the Landlord’s claim.

Should the Tenant compensate the Landlord for loss of rent?

The Landlord seeks compensation of six week’s rent, being $3,450, on the basis the Premises could not be re-tenanted after the Tenant moved out because he says work needed to be carried out to fix the bathroom’s underfloor heating. In fact, the work has not been completed, and the Landlord says the Premises remains untenanted.
To succeed in this claim, the Landlord would need to prove: 28 a. That loss of rent was a foreseeable consequence of the Tenant causing damage to the underfloor heating in the bathroom; b. That the Tenant damaged the underfloor heating and that was an effective cause of the loss of rent; and c. That the loss was not too remote.
Given my finding that the Landlord has not proved the Tenant caused damage to the underfloor heating in the bathroom this claim can not succeed and is dismissed.

Is either party entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee?

Neither party has substantially succeeded with their claims, therefore neither party is entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

To whom should the bond be refunded?

As the Landlord has not succeeded in any of their claims against the Tenant, the bond is to be refunded to the Tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5281639 — Healthy homes at 90 Medallion Drive, Oteha, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5281639 — Healthy homes at 90 Medallion Drive, Oteha, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Landlord pay the Tenant exemplary damages?

Was the Premises an unlawful residential premises?

Is the Tenant responsible for damage to the cooktop?

Is the Tenant responsible for damage to the bathroom underfloor heating?

Should the Tenant compensate the Landlord for loss of rent?

Is either party entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee?

To whom should the bond be refunded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Landlord pay the Tenant exemplary damages?

Was the Premises an unlawful residential premises?

Is the Tenant responsible for damage to the cooktop?

Is the Tenant responsible for damage to the bathroom underfloor heating?

Should the Tenant compensate the Landlord for loss of rent?

Is either party entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee?

To whom should the bond be refunded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions