What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5281982 about?

The tribunal order states: Suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details is granted.

How much money was awarded in case 5281982?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5281982?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5281982?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12656949-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5281982 about?

The tribunal order states: Suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details is granted.

How much money was awarded in case 5281982?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5281982?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5281982?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12656949-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5281982 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5281982 — Exemplary damages | TenantCheck

Order

Suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details is granted.
The fixed-term tenancy of the tenant at [Tenancy address suppressed] ended on 25 September 2025.
The tenant must pay the landlord $2,447.14 from the Bond, being rent arrears to 25 September 2025 and compensation of $30.00 per week from 26 September to 13 October 2025.
The amount to pay is calculated as follows:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,447.14 ([Bond number suppressed]) as follows: The landlord $2,447.14 The tenant $272.86

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for reduction of her fixed term tenancy. She has claimed compensation from the landlord for: a. failing to maintain the property b. failing to meet Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), c. for doctor’s bills, d. cost of power, e. clothes damaged by mould, f. rent paid while having to live elsewhere during the tenancy g. and for unlawful premises.
In a cross application the landlord has claimed rent arrears to the date when a new tenant occupied the property and compensation of $30.00 per week since that date to the end of the fixed term to cover the reduced rent the new tenant is paying.
Both parties have requested payment of the bond held at the Bond Centre, reimbursement of the filing fee and name suppression. Background
The tenancy began with a fixed term from December 2023 to January 2025. In January 2025 the tenancy was renewed for a further year to January 2026. During the tenancy the tenant told the landlord that there were maintenance issues at the property. In May 2025 she informed the landlord that the premises was affecting her health. Later she claimed that the premises was uninhabitable. Shortly thereafter, on 20 June 2025, the tenant applied to the Tribunal for the fixed term to be reduced and the compensation I have set out in paragraph 2 above.
Notice was sent to the parties on 7 July for a hearing on 4 August. On the day she received notice, the property manager informed Tenancy Services that she would be overseas for a month from 23 July to 20 August for her father’s 80 th birthday and could not attend the hearing. An adjournment to a later date was granted.
On or about 18 July 2025 the tenant signed a Tenancy Agreement to occupy a different premises.
On 11 August the tenant gave 2 days notice to the landlord terminating her tenancy on 14 August. The reason given by the tenant for the 2 day notice period was that the premises is uninhabitable. She referred to section 59A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (hereafter ‘RTA’) which provides for a tenant to give 2 days notice where a breach renders a premises uninhabitable. The tenant stated that her health was being compromised by moisture, dampness, humidity and mould in the property and she could not live there.
At the hearing on 13 October 2025 the tenant requested a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy to the date she left the property.
The landlord’s submission is that the tenant did not have grounds to end the fixed term tenancy. The landlord stated that maintenance issues raised by the tenant had been attended to at the time she gave a termination notice. The premises had been occupied by a previous tenant for over 20 years with no concerns about health and wellbeing. The landlord stated that the tenant had lived at the property through a winter in 2024 and had not raised any health concerns. The landlord submitted that the tenant’s health issues could not be linked to the condition of the premises.

Was the premises destroyed or so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable?

Section 59A RTA, used by the tenant to justify leaving the tenancy with 2 days notice, states: This section applies if, as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed-term tenancy or a periodic tenancy) by a party, the premises are destroyed or are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable.
The tenant provided the following evidence in support of her claim that the property was uninhabitable. a. A summary of issues from a Licenced Building Practitioner who carried out an assessment on 14 June 2025. He determined that there was excess moisture in two bedrooms; signs of black mould in 2 bedrooms, the lounge and the hot water cupboard; ground raised partly above some foundation vents that allow water to travel under the house; a wastepipe leak under the shower; blocked spouting; mould under the paint on the cladding on 3 sides of the house; rusted corner soakers; and window and ranch slider seals in poor condition. He assessed that these defects would lead to excess moisture in the house. b. A letter from the WCC Team Leader Public Health dated 15 July following a visit to the premises dated 11 July 2025. He expressed an opinion that the HHS for Moisture Ingress was not being met because the foundation vents were very close to the ground. c. Photos of high humidity readings she took in various locations in the premises. d. Photos of areas of the premises that she believed were causing issues for her health. e. Photos of mould in the corner of a bedroom and bubbling wallpaper. f. Photos of drainage work being carried out g. A letter from her doctor dated 4 June confirming she had presented in multiple occasions with upper respiratory infections. The letter stated that “according to Emma she has been living in a house which has areas of humidity and there are walls with moist and mold which could be a contributing factor to infections”. h. Some dates of visits to the doctor and a photo of spots on her partner’s back.
In response to the claim of uninhabitable premises the landlord provided: a. A HHS report carried out pre tenancy by Aaron Birch trading as ‘Property Safe’ dated 27 January 2021 showing that the premises was complaint except for the kitchen extractor fan ducting to the outside and sealing around the entry door. b. Invoice from Metro Electrical showing installation of of a Smartvent ventilation system, new bathroom fan and a ducted kitchen rangehood. c. Invoices showing work carried out prior to 13 July investigating subfloor moisture levels and checking the moisture barrier and assessing any moisture ingress through the foundation vents. Moisture levels were within acceptable range. Carrying out front door repairs and sealing around it; cleaning roof gutters; constructing a subfloor entrance door; sealing windows and sealing scriber to aluminium window exterior; d. A HHS report from Sustainability Trust on 28 July 2025 showing that the premises was completely compliant with HHS. e. A building report carried out by Inspection Plus Limited dated 5 September 2025 showing no raised moisture readings. f. Photographs of humidity readings in July and September showing normal humidity readings throughout the premises. g. He stated that there was no mould in the hot water cupboard. It was staining from a leak prior to the tenancy. Sustainability Trust stated that mould elsewhere could be reduced by ventilation by the tenant.

Were the premises so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable?

All the reports provided by the parties refer to the maintenance work that was needed at the premises. However neither the correspondence from WCC and the LBP nor the landlord’s reports concluded that the premises was uninhabitable.
If the Council had concerns that the premises was uninhabitable, this would have been noted in the communication to the tenant and the tenant probably prevented from living there.
Where premises fail Healthy Homes Standards, it does not follow that the premises must be uninhabitable. It does mean that remedial work needs to be carried out to rectify any HHS shortcomings.
I have considered the evidence provided and am satisfied that the structure of premises was dry. The premises’ foundation vents should not be compromised by the ground levels beside them but there is insufficient evidence that this had led to water ponding under the dwelling. Moisture readings of the underfloor structure were in a normal range. There was no photographic evidence from the LBP showing how he established moisture readings of 26% and 41% in two bedrooms. The Hydromette meter has a building material moisture measuring range of 0.3% to 6.0%. The Hydromette meter also measures moisture in digits. Readings of 26 and 41 digits show a normal dry residential premises.
The parties provided conflicting humidity readings. The tenant provided photos of a unit showing high readings however humidity measured during the tenancy, when Sustainability Trust was at the premises, showed normal humidity readings. The normal moisture readings of the building material and walls suggest that high humidity is more likely to be the way the building was being used rather than a defective premises.
There was no evidence presented, such as a Mould Analytical Test Report, showing abnormal levels of mould spores in the air in the premises.
There is no doubt that the tenant was experiencing respiratory issues after renewing the tenancy. However there is a difficulty proving that a building must be unhealthy because occupants suffer from respiratory conditions. If respiratory conditions were only experienced by people living in unhealthy buildings, then proof of unhealthy buildings would be easy. Respiratory conditions are widespread in the community. People living in all types of premises suffer from respiratory conditions. Problems relating to breathing come from sources other than buildings.
From the evidence I am satisfied that when the tenant terminated the tenancy, the premises was not so seriously damaged that it was uninhabitable. The tenant did not have grounds for vacating the property with 2 days notice. She was in a fixed term tenancy and either needed an order from the Tribunal reducing the fixed term or the consent of the landlord to break the fixed term. The landlord’s suggestion that another place should be found for her does not amount to giving consent for the tenant to break the fixed term whenever she chose to do so.

Should the Tribunal reduce the fixed term tenancy?

Because the tenant did not have grounds for terminating the tenancy under section 59A I have considered whether the tenant has experienced an unforeseen change in her circumstances that warrants a reduction in her fixed term tenancy. Section 66 RTA provides that the Tribunal may reduce or terminate a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) RTA. Has there been an unforeseen change in the tenant’ circumstances?
The tenant’s claim for a reduction in the fixed term could only be on the grounds that her health circumstances had changed. I have already stated that the tenant did not provide sufficient evidence for me to be able to conclude that the premises caused her respiratory condition. Therefore, if the tenant decided to move to another premises because of her medical condition, the landlord should not suffer a loss because of that decision.
The tenant chose to end her tenancy despite remedial work and improvements to address defects while she lived at the property. To rectify issues raised in the building report, the landlord arranged maintenance work in July 2025, before the tenant gave notice. The landlord also arranged the installation of a Smartvent Positive Pressure System in the premises. This was not a required statutory obligation. By 28 July Sustainability Trust reported that the premises was fully complaint with HHS. Despite this work the tenant chose to leave.
It the tenant had stayed in the property until the Tribunal hearing and requested termination of the fixed term, it is likely that if the Tribunal reduced the fixed term, it would have required the tenant to pay rent until a new tenant took over the property, plus the administrative costs relating to a new tenancy and any loss caused by a reduction of weekly rent. That is because, where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) RTA. Summary regarding the tenant terminating the fixed term tenancy
The tenant did not have grounds for terminating the tenancy using section 59A RTA. The tenant gave notice terminating the tenancy without the landlord’s consent and without a ruling from the Tribunal. The tenancy therefore continued until a new tenant occupied the premises on 26 September 2025. Rent is ordered to that date. The landlord is compensated for the cost of finding new tenant and $30.00 per week for the reduced weekly rent received from the new tenant. That $30.00 is calculated to the date of the hearing. The Tribunal does not order future losses because they may not occur.

Did the landlord carry out maintenance within a reasonable time?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 RTA. Under section 45, a landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety. Section 45(1)(bb) (RTA), requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS)
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence provided does show that the tenant requested maintenance of the entry door long before the landlord carried out the work. The seal around entry door was one of the reasons why the premises failed the HHS in 2021. In the routine property inspection report dated 17/2/2025 the property manager noted that the tenant was proactive in mentioning maintenance concerns. ‘The door handle to the front door is broken and doesn't shut properly. -the tenant did say owner was possibly going to replace the whole door – still the same as the last inspection.’
In the inspection report dated 29/5/2025 the property manager recorded once again: ‘The door handle to the front door is broken and doesn't shut properly. - Tenant did say owner was possibly going to replace the whole door - still same issue as last inspection.’
She also recorded: ‘The tenant needs the windows fixed it is making them sick please make this the priority as well as the cleaning of the gutters. Dining room windows - Urgent maintenance required. Needs new seal, doesn't create as much of a problem in kitchen due to being under carport sheltered from weather. The one in the dining room does create a problem though. And causes mould on curtains and condensation.’
Apart from a failure to maintain, HHS requirements apply to avoiding gaps in windows and doors that affect draught stopping, heating loss and moisture in the premises. I have not referred to all the evidence regarding deterioration in parts of the premises.
The landlord did carry out replacement cladding work in October 2024 and also installed a new heat pump that year that significantly exceeded the HHS heating requirements.
However it was not until late July 2025, after the Sustainable Trust HHS report, that maintenance work was completed.
I find that the tenant is entitled to compensation for these failures on the part of the landlord. The failure to maintain would have contributed to the tenant’s loss of enjoyment in the use of the premises, especially in winter weather.
The failure to fix the seals in windows and the entry door is also a breach of HHS regarding draught stopping. Regarding maintenance and HHS I find that the landlord has 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. See section 109(3) RTA. Turning a blind eye to maintenance is committing an unlawful act intentionally. The effect of the unlawful act is that the tenant did not always have the benefit of a draught free home. The landlord delayed the expense of maintenance. It is in the public interest that landlords be held to their obligation to maintain their rental properties.
Before determining an amount of compensation and exemplary damages I have considered the tenant’s claims for doctor’s bills; cost of power; clothes damaged by mould; and rent paid while having to live elsewhere during the tenancy. The tenant did not provide sufficient evidence regarding any of these matters to prove either a loss or a quantifiable amount, if there was a loss.
The tenant has also claimed compensation for unlawful premises. The premises is not unlawful residential premises.
I have set the amount to pay for compensation and exemplary damages at $2,400.00. I have used the guide of one third of the maximum $7,200.00 for compensation and exemplary damages. The maximum is reserved for the most serious breaches and for recidivous breaches. Filing fee
Because both parties have been partly successful with their claims, no order is made regarding the filing fee. Suppression
Both parties have applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord substantially succeeded with the claim. Suppression is granted.
The Tribunal may, on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (s.95A(4). This order contains information about the tenant’s health condition. In the interest of that party and because there is no public interest in her name being published, I have granted her name suppression.

Order

Suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details is granted.
The fixed-term tenancy of the tenant at [Tenancy address suppressed] ended on 25 September 2025.
The tenant must pay the landlord $2,447.14 from the Bond, being rent arrears to 25 September 2025 and compensation of $30.00 per week from 26 September to 13 October 2025.
The amount to pay is calculated as follows:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,447.14 ([Bond number suppressed]) as follows: The landlord $2,447.14 The tenant $272.86

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for reduction of her fixed term tenancy. She has claimed compensation from the landlord for: a. failing to maintain the property b. failing to meet Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), c. for doctor’s bills, d. cost of power, e. clothes damaged by mould, f. rent paid while having to live elsewhere during the tenancy g. and for unlawful premises.
In a cross application the landlord has claimed rent arrears to the date when a new tenant occupied the property and compensation of $30.00 per week since that date to the end of the fixed term to cover the reduced rent the new tenant is paying.
Both parties have requested payment of the bond held at the Bond Centre, reimbursement of the filing fee and name suppression. Background
The tenancy began with a fixed term from December 2023 to January 2025. In January 2025 the tenancy was renewed for a further year to January 2026. During the tenancy the tenant told the landlord that there were maintenance issues at the property. In May 2025 she informed the landlord that the premises was affecting her health. Later she claimed that the premises was uninhabitable. Shortly thereafter, on 20 June 2025, the tenant applied to the Tribunal for the fixed term to be reduced and the compensation I have set out in paragraph 2 above.
Notice was sent to the parties on 7 July for a hearing on 4 August. On the day she received notice, the property manager informed Tenancy Services that she would be overseas for a month from 23 July to 20 August for her father’s 80 th birthday and could not attend the hearing. An adjournment to a later date was granted.
On or about 18 July 2025 the tenant signed a Tenancy Agreement to occupy a different premises.
On 11 August the tenant gave 2 days notice to the landlord terminating her tenancy on 14 August. The reason given by the tenant for the 2 day notice period was that the premises is uninhabitable. She referred to section 59A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (hereafter ‘RTA’) which provides for a tenant to give 2 days notice where a breach renders a premises uninhabitable. The tenant stated that her health was being compromised by moisture, dampness, humidity and mould in the property and she could not live there.
At the hearing on 13 October 2025 the tenant requested a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy to the date she left the property.
The landlord’s submission is that the tenant did not have grounds to end the fixed term tenancy. The landlord stated that maintenance issues raised by the tenant had been attended to at the time she gave a termination notice. The premises had been occupied by a previous tenant for over 20 years with no concerns about health and wellbeing. The landlord stated that the tenant had lived at the property through a winter in 2024 and had not raised any health concerns. The landlord submitted that the tenant’s health issues could not be linked to the condition of the premises.

Was the premises destroyed or so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable?

Section 59A RTA, used by the tenant to justify leaving the tenancy with 2 days notice, states: This section applies if, as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed-term tenancy or a periodic tenancy) by a party, the premises are destroyed or are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable.
The tenant provided the following evidence in support of her claim that the property was uninhabitable. a. A summary of issues from a Licenced Building Practitioner who carried out an assessment on 14 June 2025. He determined that there was excess moisture in two bedrooms; signs of black mould in 2 bedrooms, the lounge and the hot water cupboard; ground raised partly above some foundation vents that allow water to travel under the house; a wastepipe leak under the shower; blocked spouting; mould under the paint on the cladding on 3 sides of the house; rusted corner soakers; and window and ranch slider seals in poor condition. He assessed that these defects would lead to excess moisture in the house. b. A letter from the WCC Team Leader Public Health dated 15 July following a visit to the premises dated 11 July 2025. He expressed an opinion that the HHS for Moisture Ingress was not being met because the foundation vents were very close to the ground. c. Photos of high humidity readings she took in various locations in the premises. d. Photos of areas of the premises that she believed were causing issues for her health. e. Photos of mould in the corner of a bedroom and bubbling wallpaper. f. Photos of drainage work being carried out g. A letter from her doctor dated 4 June confirming she had presented in multiple occasions with upper respiratory infections. The letter stated that “according to Emma she has been living in a house which has areas of humidity and there are walls with moist and mold which could be a contributing factor to infections”. h. Some dates of visits to the doctor and a photo of spots on her partner’s back.
In response to the claim of uninhabitable premises the landlord provided: a. A HHS report carried out pre tenancy by Aaron Birch trading as ‘Property Safe’ dated 27 January 2021 showing that the premises was complaint except for the kitchen extractor fan ducting to the outside and sealing around the entry door. b. Invoice from Metro Electrical showing installation of of a Smartvent ventilation system, new bathroom fan and a ducted kitchen rangehood. c. Invoices showing work carried out prior to 13 July investigating subfloor moisture levels and checking the moisture barrier and assessing any moisture ingress through the foundation vents. Moisture levels were within acceptable range. Carrying out front door repairs and sealing around it; cleaning roof gutters; constructing a subfloor entrance door; sealing windows and sealing scriber to aluminium window exterior; d. A HHS report from Sustainability Trust on 28 July 2025 showing that the premises was completely compliant with HHS. e. A building report carried out by Inspection Plus Limited dated 5 September 2025 showing no raised moisture readings. f. Photographs of humidity readings in July and September showing normal humidity readings throughout the premises. g. He stated that there was no mould in the hot water cupboard. It was staining from a leak prior to the tenancy. Sustainability Trust stated that mould elsewhere could be reduced by ventilation by the tenant.

Were the premises so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable?

All the reports provided by the parties refer to the maintenance work that was needed at the premises. However neither the correspondence from WCC and the LBP nor the landlord’s reports concluded that the premises was uninhabitable.
If the Council had concerns that the premises was uninhabitable, this would have been noted in the communication to the tenant and the tenant probably prevented from living there.
Where premises fail Healthy Homes Standards, it does not follow that the premises must be uninhabitable. It does mean that remedial work needs to be carried out to rectify any HHS shortcomings.
I have considered the evidence provided and am satisfied that the structure of premises was dry. The premises’ foundation vents should not be compromised by the ground levels beside them but there is insufficient evidence that this had led to water ponding under the dwelling. Moisture readings of the underfloor structure were in a normal range. There was no photographic evidence from the LBP showing how he established moisture readings of 26% and 41% in two bedrooms. The Hydromette meter has a building material moisture measuring range of 0.3% to 6.0%. The Hydromette meter also measures moisture in digits. Readings of 26 and 41 digits show a normal dry residential premises.
The parties provided conflicting humidity readings. The tenant provided photos of a unit showing high readings however humidity measured during the tenancy, when Sustainability Trust was at the premises, showed normal humidity readings. The normal moisture readings of the building material and walls suggest that high humidity is more likely to be the way the building was being used rather than a defective premises.
There was no evidence presented, such as a Mould Analytical Test Report, showing abnormal levels of mould spores in the air in the premises.
There is no doubt that the tenant was experiencing respiratory issues after renewing the tenancy. However there is a difficulty proving that a building must be unhealthy because occupants suffer from respiratory conditions. If respiratory conditions were only experienced by people living in unhealthy buildings, then proof of unhealthy buildings would be easy. Respiratory conditions are widespread in the community. People living in all types of premises suffer from respiratory conditions. Problems relating to breathing come from sources other than buildings.
From the evidence I am satisfied that when the tenant terminated the tenancy, the premises was not so seriously damaged that it was uninhabitable. The tenant did not have grounds for vacating the property with 2 days notice. She was in a fixed term tenancy and either needed an order from the Tribunal reducing the fixed term or the consent of the landlord to break the fixed term. The landlord’s suggestion that another place should be found for her does not amount to giving consent for the tenant to break the fixed term whenever she chose to do so.

Should the Tribunal reduce the fixed term tenancy?

Because the tenant did not have grounds for terminating the tenancy under section 59A I have considered whether the tenant has experienced an unforeseen change in her circumstances that warrants a reduction in her fixed term tenancy. Section 66 RTA provides that the Tribunal may reduce or terminate a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) RTA. Has there been an unforeseen change in the tenant’ circumstances?
The tenant’s claim for a reduction in the fixed term could only be on the grounds that her health circumstances had changed. I have already stated that the tenant did not provide sufficient evidence for me to be able to conclude that the premises caused her respiratory condition. Therefore, if the tenant decided to move to another premises because of her medical condition, the landlord should not suffer a loss because of that decision.
The tenant chose to end her tenancy despite remedial work and improvements to address defects while she lived at the property. To rectify issues raised in the building report, the landlord arranged maintenance work in July 2025, before the tenant gave notice. The landlord also arranged the installation of a Smartvent Positive Pressure System in the premises. This was not a required statutory obligation. By 28 July Sustainability Trust reported that the premises was fully complaint with HHS. Despite this work the tenant chose to leave.
It the tenant had stayed in the property until the Tribunal hearing and requested termination of the fixed term, it is likely that if the Tribunal reduced the fixed term, it would have required the tenant to pay rent until a new tenant took over the property, plus the administrative costs relating to a new tenancy and any loss caused by a reduction of weekly rent. That is because, where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) RTA. Summary regarding the tenant terminating the fixed term tenancy
The tenant did not have grounds for terminating the tenancy using section 59A RTA. The tenant gave notice terminating the tenancy without the landlord’s consent and without a ruling from the Tribunal. The tenancy therefore continued until a new tenant occupied the premises on 26 September 2025. Rent is ordered to that date. The landlord is compensated for the cost of finding new tenant and $30.00 per week for the reduced weekly rent received from the new tenant. That $30.00 is calculated to the date of the hearing. The Tribunal does not order future losses because they may not occur.

Did the landlord carry out maintenance within a reasonable time?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 RTA. Under section 45, a landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety. Section 45(1)(bb) (RTA), requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS)
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence provided does show that the tenant requested maintenance of the entry door long before the landlord carried out the work. The seal around entry door was one of the reasons why the premises failed the HHS in 2021. In the routine property inspection report dated 17/2/2025 the property manager noted that the tenant was proactive in mentioning maintenance concerns. ‘The door handle to the front door is broken and doesn't shut properly. -the tenant did say owner was possibly going to replace the whole door – still the same as the last inspection.’
In the inspection report dated 29/5/2025 the property manager recorded once again: ‘The door handle to the front door is broken and doesn't shut properly. - Tenant did say owner was possibly going to replace the whole door - still same issue as last inspection.’
She also recorded: ‘The tenant needs the windows fixed it is making them sick please make this the priority as well as the cleaning of the gutters. Dining room windows - Urgent maintenance required. Needs new seal, doesn't create as much of a problem in kitchen due to being under carport sheltered from weather. The one in the dining room does create a problem though. And causes mould on curtains and condensation.’
Apart from a failure to maintain, HHS requirements apply to avoiding gaps in windows and doors that affect draught stopping, heating loss and moisture in the premises. I have not referred to all the evidence regarding deterioration in parts of the premises.
The landlord did carry out replacement cladding work in October 2024 and also installed a new heat pump that year that significantly exceeded the HHS heating requirements.
However it was not until late July 2025, after the Sustainable Trust HHS report, that maintenance work was completed.
I find that the tenant is entitled to compensation for these failures on the part of the landlord. The failure to maintain would have contributed to the tenant’s loss of enjoyment in the use of the premises, especially in winter weather.
The failure to fix the seals in windows and the entry door is also a breach of HHS regarding draught stopping. Regarding maintenance and HHS I find that the landlord has 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. See section 109(3) RTA. Turning a blind eye to maintenance is committing an unlawful act intentionally. The effect of the unlawful act is that the tenant did not always have the benefit of a draught free home. The landlord delayed the expense of maintenance. It is in the public interest that landlords be held to their obligation to maintain their rental properties.
Before determining an amount of compensation and exemplary damages I have considered the tenant’s claims for doctor’s bills; cost of power; clothes damaged by mould; and rent paid while having to live elsewhere during the tenancy. The tenant did not provide sufficient evidence regarding any of these matters to prove either a loss or a quantifiable amount, if there was a loss.
The tenant has also claimed compensation for unlawful premises. The premises is not unlawful residential premises.
I have set the amount to pay for compensation and exemplary damages at $2,400.00. I have used the guide of one third of the maximum $7,200.00 for compensation and exemplary damages. The maximum is reserved for the most serious breaches and for recidivous breaches. Filing fee
Because both parties have been partly successful with their claims, no order is made regarding the filing fee. Suppression
Both parties have applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord substantially succeeded with the claim. Suppression is granted.
The Tribunal may, on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (s.95A(4). This order contains information about the tenant’s health condition. In the interest of that party and because there is no public interest in her name being published, I have granted her name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5281982 — Exemplary damages

Tenancy Tribunal case 5281982 — Exemplary damages

Order

Reasons

Was the premises destroyed or so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable?

Were the premises so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable?

Should the Tribunal reduce the fixed term tenancy?

Did the landlord carry out maintenance within a reasonable time?

Order

Reasons

Was the premises destroyed or so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable?

Were the premises so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable?

Should the Tribunal reduce the fixed term tenancy?

Did the landlord carry out maintenance within a reasonable time?