What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5287279 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 5287279?

Compensation: loss of amenity at a w…: $860.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful Premises: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $390.00 awarded to landlord; Reimbursement Of Power: $169.04 awarded to tenant; Rent - 21 July 2025: $98.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287279?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287279?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12865612-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5287279 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 5287279?

Compensation: loss of amenity at a w…: $860.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful Premises: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $390.00 awarded to landlord; Reimbursement Of Power: $169.04 awarded to tenant; Rent - 21 July 2025: $98.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287279?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287279?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12865612-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

30 Chesterton Street, Johnsonville, Wellington 6037 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5287279 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5287279 — net $6,040.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent - 21 July 2025	$98.57		Rent - 21 July 2025
Lock/key replacement: by consent	$390.00		Lock/key replacement: by consent
Compensation: loss of amenity at a week		$860.00	loss of amenity at a week
Exemplary damages: Healthy homes		$2,000.00	Healthy homes
Exemplary damages: Tenancy agreement breach		$300.00	Tenancy agreement breach
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory notice		$2,200.00	Retaliatory notice
Compensation: unlawful premises		$1,000.00	unlawful premises
Reimbursement of power		$169.04	Reimbursement of power
Total award	$488.57	$6,529.04
Net award		$6,040.47
Bond		$2,760.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$6,040.47

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5287279 — net $6,040.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent - 21 July 2025	$98.57		Rent - 21 July 2025
Lock/key replacement: by consent	$390.00		Lock/key replacement: by consent
Compensation: loss of amenity at a week		$860.00	loss of amenity at a week
Exemplary damages: Healthy homes		$2,000.00	Healthy homes
Exemplary damages: Tenancy agreement breach		$300.00	Tenancy agreement breach
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory notice		$2,200.00	Retaliatory notice
Compensation: unlawful premises		$1,000.00	unlawful premises
Reimbursement of power		$169.04	Reimbursement of power
Total award	$488.57	$6,529.04
Net award		$6,040.47
Bond		$2,760.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$6,040.47

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s names and identifying details.
Ying Liu must pay [The tenant/s] $6,040.47 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tribunal had the assistance of an interpreter. The tenants were represented by [The tenant’s representative].
The parties signed a fixed term tenancy agreement. The tenancy premises was a house and garage with other tenants already living in a unit created downstairs. The tenants filed an application to the Tenancy Tribunal within two weeks of moving in because they were unhappy with the condition of the house and the landlord’s responses to their requests. The tenancy ended by agreement on 21 July 2025 after the tenants found somewhere else to live. The tenants have applied for compensation, exemplary damages, reimbursement of the money paid for power and reimbursement of rent because the premises were unlawful. The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy. Both parties want the bond.
The questions I have to decide include: • Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy? • Was there a loss of amenity? • Was the house draughty? • Was the tenancy agreement misleading? • Was the 90 day notice a retaliatory notice? • Should the landlord reimburse the money paid for power? • Should the landlord reimburse the rent because the premises were unlawful? • Should the tenants pay compensation? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

I find the tenancy ended on 21 July 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants did not pay rent for the last day because they were all moved out by 12pm. I find the tenants have to pay for the last day because they were still at the house and that was day the parties agreed the tenancy would end.
At the end of the tenancy section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires the tenants to remove rubbish and return all keys, remotes and security devices.
There is a claim for rubbish removal. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I do not have photos showing me the rubbish left behind at the end of the tenancy or proof the landlord paid someone to remove it. I find the landlord has not proved this claim and it is dismissed.
The tenants agree they did not return the keys and said they would pay the cost of replacement keys. This claim is allowed.
The tenants do not agree they were given a garage door remote and said they always used the button inside to open the door. The landlord does not have a written record proving the tenants were given a remote. The landlord has not proved the tenants received a remote so the claim for a replacement is dismissed.

Was there a loss of amenity?

The tenants have applied for compensation for a loss of amenity. There are many parts to this claim.
The tenants have claimed that the house was not in a reasonable condition when they moved in. Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness. See section 45 RTA.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. The tenants provided me with photos they said were taken when they moved in. The photos are not great quality but they do show that parts of the house were not reasonably clean.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord said the tenants’ submission was not to be trusted because it took 15 days after they moved in for them to complain about cleanliness. The landlord did not complete an inspection before the tenants moved in. She did not take photos. She relied on her cleaner who provided a written statement. The cleaner said the house was clean when the tenants moved in and the photos provided by the tenants were fabricated. I allowed time so the landlord could arrange for the cleaner to attend the hearing, but the cleaner refused to be a witness. I asked the tenants to provide the data for the photos and they have provided some evidence to show the photos were taken on 9 June, which is the day they moved in. I am more persuaded by the tenants’ evidence and I find the house was not provided in a reasonably clean condition.
The tenants also had a list of maintenance and repairs from when they moved in. They served a 14 day notice and the landlord and most were not remedied. They asked for 14 work orders when their application was filed. This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I have seen the photos. I find the tenants have not proved there was harmful mould at the house. I find the landlord should have replaced the toilet seat and the shower seal within 24 hours. The handles and the holes should have been fixed within a week. Arrangements to repair the stove, the heated towel rail and the garage floor should have been made when the tenants served the 14 day notice. The landlord’s belongings should have been removed within a week. All this means the tenants were paying rent for a house they could not use as expected.
The landlord left belongings in the garage, in the storage room and on the deck. The tenants were paying to use these spaces. I do not find the landlord’s explanation that the tenants blocked access preventing collection is credible because the landlord had only arranged for some the items to be collected. This also means the tenants were paying rent for parts of the tenancy premises they could not properly use.
Finally, the landlord did not let the tenants know that there would be plumbing work downstairs the day after they moved and again two days later. The water was turned off a number of times. The tenants were exhausted and had made no provision for the water being turned off. Even though the work was downstairs the family could not use the house as intended.
I find there was a loss of amenity when the tenants moved in and when the landlord did not complete repairs. The rent was $690 a week. I find $140 a week to be reasonable compensation. I do not find any of these breaches of section 45 to be significant enough to order exemplary damages.
I do not find the landlord can be blamed for the car being stolen or for the tyre going missing. It was unfortunate and I can see how easy it is to blame the lack of a garage. However I have to consider loss that is reasonably foreseeable and the car being stolen is a step too far. I also find there were too many parties involved with the tyre and the fingerprinting for the landlord to be held responsible for the missing tyre. I have not included these losses in the loss of amenity compensation for these reasons.

Was the house draughty?

The tenants claim the 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 Regulations (HHS). The tenants consider the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard. The compliance date for the rental was 1 July 2025.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises are free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and schedule 1A RTA.
It is agreed evidence the house did not comply with this standard while the tenants were renting the house. The landlord had the house checked and the draught stopping attended to after the tenants moved out. This is a clear breach of the HHS. 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord said she thought the house complied with HHS and it was very hard to get someone to check the house once the tenancy agreement was signed. I find the landlord acted intentionally. The HHS information should have been provided in the tenancy agreement. The tenants said the draughts were significant and the house was cold. They have a small child and a baby. The tenants provided videos showing the draughts blowing into the house. I find the draughts were unreasonable and it seems likely to me the house would have been cold as a result. It is in tenants’ interests that landlord’s comply with the HHS and provide a house that will keep the cold out. There is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages to encourage compliance. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $2000. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any previous orders made against the landlord.

Was the tenancy agreement misleading?

The tenants claim the landlord did not complete the HHS certificate properly. Under s 13A(1CA) RTA landlords must include in the tenancy agreement a signed statement that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations.
Section 13A(1F) RTA provides that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they fail to include a healthy homes statement in the tenancy agreement or if the statement includes anything that the landlord knows to be false or misleading. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $900 for knowingly providing false or misleading information.
The landlord signed a statement that the house complied with the HHS when the tenancy started. She has left the extractor fan, moisture ingress and drainage, and draughts parts of the HHS certificate blank. She said she made up the information for the underfloor insulation. I find the landlord breached the obligation to provide information and, by signing the statement, deliberately misled the tenants. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
The same considerations for exemplary damages apply. I find the landlord acted intentionally. The tenants relied on the HHS certificate and were surprised the house was so cold and draughty. There is interest in landlords disclosing compliance in the tenancy agreement so tenants can choose which houses to rent. There is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages when they breach the RTA. I allow $300 in exemplary damages because there are no similar orders against the landlord.

Was the 90 day notice a retaliatory notice?

On 30 June 2025 the landlord gave the tenants a notice ending the tenancy in 90 days. The tenants claim the notice is retaliatory. For a notice to be declared retaliatory the tenants must prove that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500. See section 54 and Schedule 1A RTA.
The parties signed a fixed term tenancy agreement. Three days into the tenancy the tenants requested maintenance. The landlord’s immediate response was the tenants could move out if they were not happy. The parties agreed the tenancy could be changed to a periodic tenancy. On 30 June the tenants emailed the landlord and asked for the HHS certificate in the new agreement to be completed properly and for the garage and storage room to be cleared of the landlord’s belongings. Less than an hour later the landlord served the 90 day notice.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. Their submission is that the timing of the notice, given after the 14 day notice was not remedied and after the tenants raised concerns about HHS compliance, indicates the notice was retaliatory. In reply the landlord said she had a serious back injury which meant she did not respond to the tenants in an appropriate manner when she received the 14 day notice. She tried to make it up to them by agreeing to a periodic tenancy. She gave the tenants the 90 day notice because they were clearly unhappy with the tenancy and the repairs were greater than she realised. I am more persuaded by the tenants’ submission. It seems most likely to me the landlord was motivated by the tenants exercising their rights and by their complaint the day the notice was given. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
The tenancy had ended before the hearing but I can still order exemplary damages. I find the landlord acted intentionally because there was a pattern of the landlord suggesting the tenants leave, and the 90 day notice was given as soon as the tenants signed the periodic agreement. The effect for the tenants was stress due to the process of moving all over again, which was extremely time consuming and financially burdening. They had found a kindy, loved the house, and hoped to settle for some time. The tenants said the continuous pressure put on them to move out caused confusion and uncertainty. It is in tenants interests that requests for maintenance and HHS information can be made during the tenancy without fear of a 90 day notice, and there is public interest in exemplary damages when 90 day notices are misused. I allow $2200 which reflects the landlord’s previous good record.
The tenants have claimed the cost of moving and taking out a new bond. This claim is not allowed. The current law allowed the landlord to give the tenants a 90 day notice because they had a periodic tenancy, which means there was always a risk tenants would have to move sooner then expected. What the landlord did wrong was give a retaliatory notice, and she has paid a penalty for that. All claims relating to moving costs are dismissed.

Should the landlord reimburse the money paid for power?

The tenants have asked for the money they paid for power to be reimbursed. This is because the tenants in the downstairs unit were also using the power. This is the tenants’ claim to prove. The landlord had a system for calculating the power and a meter which measured the power used by the tenants downstairs. These devices are called a check meter and I occasionally still see tenancies where a check meter is used. The tenants provided me with evidence of the total power used while they were there. The landlord has given me evidence that she calculated the power for the downstairs unit and paid the tenants some money for power during the tenancy. The tenants said their power bill was high, but they have not given any evidence to suggest the check meter or the landlord’s calculations were not correct. I am not persuaded the landlord’s system was incorrect and this claim is dismissed. At the hearing the landlord said she did owe the tenants $169.04 for power and an order is made for this amount.

Should the landlord reimburse the rent because the premises were unlawful?

Section 78A RTA provides that a building being used as a place of residence is unlawful residential premises if the premises cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord’s failure to ensure there was no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises has caused the occupation to be unlawful.
The landlord provided copy of a notice to fix issued by the Wellington City Council (WCC). The notice records an inspection done on 16 September 2025 of the tenancy premises and a unit created downstairs. Building work, namely plumbing and drainage work to create a kitchen in the downstairs unit, was done without a building consent. The inspector confirmed a change of building use from a “sleeping single home” to a “sleeping residential” home without formal notification to the WCC. The landlord was advised to stop all work on the downstairs unit and end that tenancy. The landlord was also required to revert the building to a sleeping single home or get WCC consent for the change of use.
It is clear to me from this information the house could not be used to house the tenants and the downstairs tenants at the same time. Section 114 and 115 of the Building Act 2004 require an owner to notify the council of any change of use and no change of use can take place before a notice has been issued by the relevant legal authority. This means there was a failure by the landlord to ensure there was no legal impediment to the occupation of the upstairs premises by the tenants.
One of the reasons the Building Act provides rules for converting houses to multi-unit dwellings is because of the safety concerns around safe escape routes and fire protection between units. I find this safety consideration applied equally to the tenants renting the tenancy premises and to the tenants downstairs. I find the whole house was unlawful when the tenants rented the house which means I can consider the remedies under section 78 RTA.
Section 78A(3) RTA provides that the Tribunal may order the landlord to refund the whole of the sum paid as rent for the period of time the premises were unlawful premises, or refund the rent less any amount it is fair to deduct because of special circumstances, including the nature of the premises. What constitutes special circumstances is not set out in the RTA, but these are regularly considered by Adjudicators.
The landlords’ motivation for renting the property and their conduct during the tenancy. It seems reasonable to draw the conclusion that the landlord was motivated by money.
The tenant’s motivation for renting the property and bringing the claim. There is nothing in the documentation or the submissions which suggests the tenants knew they could take advantage of the situation. The tenant rented the premises until the landlord gave the 90 day notice. The tenancy only lasted 6 weeks and the application was filed during the tenancy.
The length of time the tenants lived in the property. The tenants said they would have stayed at the house if the landlord had attended to maintenance and separated the power between the tenancy premises and the unit.
The benefits the landlord received in renting the property. The weekly rent was $690. I have calculated that the tenants paid $4238.57 in rent during the tenancy.
The benefits the tenants received in renting the property. The tenants and family had somewhere to live. From the photos the house looks to be in a reasonable condition with good decks outside. The house was insulated and had heating and extractor fans. The area suited the tenants.
The seriousness of the regulatory breaches making the premises unlawful. I find this was a breach at the lower end of the scale. The tenants were living in the part of the house with building consent. This breach is less serious than someone renting, for example, a garage or an industrial unit but is worse than a house which is missing building or resource consent for some technical reason.
The detriment or loss the tenants suffered. This tenancy did not go well. There were issues with the joined power account and with the building work to the unit when the tenants moved in. The tenants were affected both emotionally and financially.
The purpose of s 78A RTA in ensuring landlords do not unfairly profit from unlawful premises. It seems most likely to me the landlord profited unfairly from the tenancy. The tenants entered into the tenancy agreement in good faith. I also find the landlord should have checked with the WCC before renting.
The public interest in discouraging tenancies of unlawful premises. The landlord should refund the rent as a disincentive to future breaches and as a warning to other landlords to check there is no legal impediment to the occupation of premises for residential purposes.
Taking all of these into account I find the landlord should refund the rent to the tenants, less an amount deducted as special circumstances. In deciding this amount I have carefully weighed the detriment to the tenants in terms of safety and amenity, the breach at the lower end of the scale, and the need to discourage landlords from renting premises that cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes. I order the landlord refund $1,000 to the tenants. I note I have factored this refund into the order for weekly compensation.

Should the tenants pay compensation?

The landlord has claimed two weeks rent from the tenants because they would not allow access for landlord to show prospective tenants. The landlord’s plan was to give 24 hours notice of viewings to take place on a Monday or Tuesday. The tenants said they did not agree to a visit on the last Monday, and told the landlord she could wait until after they had moved out. Section 48(3) and (3A) RTA allows the landlord to show prospective tenants with the tenants’ consent and that consent cannot be withheld unreasonably. I find the landlord’s plan was reasonable. Based on the messages between the parties I find the tenants did withhold consent unreasonably because packing and moving are usual activities at the end of a tenancy.
However, I do not allow compensation to the landlord for this particular tenancy because of all the problems the tenants had. Also, the landlord had repairs, a healthy homes assessment, draught stopping and visits from the WCC to carry out between tenancies, so I am not persuaded there was any loss of rent. This claim is dismissed.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Both parties have claimed there was a breach of quiet enjoyment. The RTA states that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38 RTA.
The tenants’ submission for this claim related to the contractors turning the water off and the cleaning at the start of the tenancy. I have already addressed these breaches by allowing compensation for the loss of amenity. This claim is dismissed.
The tenants have also claimed compensation for mental and emotional harm and this claim is dismissed for the same reason.
Breach of quiet enjoyment for the landlord is not a right under the RTA. The landlord’s claim is dismissed. Other orders
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre so the bond can be refunded in full to the tenants.
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
There are applications for suppression. The tenants’ names are suppressed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords rent premises unlawfully, and when landlords breach the RTA. See section 95A RTA

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287279 — Exemplary damages at 30 Chesterton Street, Johnsonville, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287279 — Exemplary damages at 30 Chesterton Street, Johnsonville, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Was there a loss of amenity?

Was the house draughty?

Was the tenancy agreement misleading?

Was the 90 day notice a retaliatory notice?

Should the landlord reimburse the money paid for power?

Should the landlord reimburse the rent because the premises were unlawful?

Should the tenants pay compensation?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Was there a loss of amenity?

Was the house draughty?

Was the tenancy agreement misleading?

Was the 90 day notice a retaliatory notice?

Should the landlord reimburse the money paid for power?

Should the landlord reimburse the rent because the premises were unlawful?

Should the tenants pay compensation?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions