What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5288988 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 5288988?

Compensation: Failure to maintain th…: $1,100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain th…: $120.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement for outg…: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5288988?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5288988?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12396360-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5288988 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 5288988?

Compensation: Failure to maintain th…: $1,100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain th…: $120.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement for outg…: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5288988?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5288988?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12396360-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

12 Staines Avenue, Mangere East, Auckland 2024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5288988 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

12 Staines Avenue, Mangere East, Auckland 2024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5288988 — Healthy homes | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5288988 — net $11,347.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Reimbursement for outgoings	$2,000.00	Reimbursement for outgoings
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards	$3,000.00	Failure to comply with healthy homes standards
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms	$2,400.00	92. Considering the above factors, I order the landlord to pay $2,400.00 in exemplary damages.
Compensation: Failure to maintain the balcony	$1,100.00	Failure to maintain the balcony
Compensation: Failure to maintain the rangehood	$120.00	Failure to maintain the rangehood
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge the bond	$700.00	130. Considering the above factors, I order the landlord to pay $700.00 in exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages: Landlord acting to terminate the tenancy without grounds	$2,000.00	Landlord acting to terminate the tenancy without grounds
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,347.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$11,347.00

Claims and awards for application 5288988 — net $11,347.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: Reimbursement for outgoings

Amount: $2,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Reimbursement for outgoings

Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards

Amount: $3,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards

Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms

Amount: $2,400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 92. Considering the above factors, I order the landlord to pay $2,400.00 in exemplary damages.

Compensation: Failure to maintain the balcony

Amount: $1,100.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain the balcony

Compensation: Failure to maintain the rangehood

Amount: $120.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Replace Smoke Alarms Exemplary damages Filing Fee

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 13 August 2025.
The tenancy began on 13 December 2023 and is for a fixed-term ending on 13 December 2025. The premises are two storeyed. The tenant lives upstairs and members of the landlord’s family live downstairs. The tenant claims the premises are unlawful. The tenant also claims the landlord has breached numerous obligations including, failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, not complying with the healthy homes standards, breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and unlawfully increasing the rent. The issues I must determine are: a. Is this an unlawful residential premises? b. Should the tenant be reimbursed for outgoings paid by them? c. Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards? d. Did the landlord fail to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms? e. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? f. Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond? g. Did the landlord act to terminate the tenancy without grounds? h. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? i. Did the landlord impose an unlawful rent increase?
Approximately half-way through the hearing on 13 August 2025, the landlord mentioned that they wanted to discuss their claim. No cross-application had been filed and I was not aware of any claim the landlord had. As we were halfway through a full-day hearing and an interpreter was present, I decided to finish hearing the tenant’s claim. I agreed to adjourn the hearing at the end of the day to allow the landlord a further opportunity to file a cross-application. I was lenient to the landlord in allowing this because I recognised that they are not experienced with the Tribunal proceedings and English is their second language. In an order dated 14 August 2025, I directed the landlord to file their cross-application by 21 August 2025. They did not do this and asked for an extension to file their application on 15 October 2025. I declined this request, because it only allowed the tenant two and a half weeks to prepare a response before the hearing on 3 November 2025. The Tribunal also has an obligation to determine disputes expeditiously. 1 It remains an option for the landlord to file their own application, which may be heard and determined at a later date. Standard of proof
As the applicant, the tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Compensation and exemplary damages – the law generally
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages for alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by the landlord.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the following factors are relevant when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 85(1).
Exemplary damages are different from compensation. They are designed to punish and deter. They are like a fine.
Under the RTA, exemplary damages may be ordered for defined unlawful acts.
Section 109(3) RTA states that exemplary damages may be ordered if the Tribunal determines an unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just, having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal that: 2 Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
The usual approach of the Tribunal is to award one third of the maximum of exemplary damages, unless there are aggravating or excusing factors in play. 3 TENANT’S CLAIMS

Is this an unlawful residential premises?

The law

Section 36 RTA requires a landlord to take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes. 2 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 3 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781.
Section 45(1)(c) RTA requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as the apply to the premises.
Section 78A(2) defines “unlawful residential premises” as meaning residential premises that are used for the occupation of a person as a place of residence, but: a. That cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes by that person (whether generally or whether for the particular residential purposes for which that person is granted occupation); and b. Where the landlord’s failure to comply with their obligations under section 36 or 45(1)(c), ..., has caused the occupation by that person to be unlawful or has contributed to that unlawful occupation.
The first step in determining whether premises are unlawful is there needs to be a finding that the property cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes. This involves making a finding that the whole property has some sort of regulatory failure which means it cannot be occupied as a residential dwelling. In other words, the unlawfulness has been more than, say, just an “outstanding permit for a bathroom.” 4
Prior cases where the Tribunal has found premises to be unlawful appear to fall broadly into one or more of the following categories: a. Unconsented premises. In other words, 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 the Council. c. Cases where garages, basement conversions or parts of premises being used as 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. The premises themselves may have had the necessary building consents but there is no Council approval for the use of the premises as a separate household unit.
The tenant submits that the third category applies to this case. The tenant claims there has been a conversion of the tenancy address into two separate premises occupied by different household units without Council consent as to the change of use. The tenant lives on the top floor and the landlord’s family lives on the bottom floor.
Regulation 6 of the Buildings (Specified Systems, Change the Use, and Earthquake-prone Buildings) Regulations 2005 states that every building or part 4 Mansfield v Silk and another [020] NZTT 4246581, at [16]. of a building has a specified use according to the table in Schedule 2. The following uses are relevant for residential purposes: SA (Sleeping Accommodation) spaces providing transient accommodation, or whether limited assistance or care is provided for people motels, hotels, hostels, boarding houses, clubs (residential), boarding schools, dormitories, halls, wharenui SR (Sleeping Residential)attached and multi-unit residential dwellings, including household units attached to spaces or dwellings with the same or other uses, such as caretakers’ flats, and residential accommodation above a shop multi-unit dwellings, flats, or apartments SH (Sleeping Single Home)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 garages (whether detached or part of the same building) if primarily for storage of the occupants’ vehicles, tools, and garden implements dwellings or houses separated from each other by distance
Section 115 of the Building Act 2004 prohibits an owner of a building from changing the use of the building – (a) in a case where the change involves the incorporation in the building of 1 or more household units where household units did not exist before, unless the territorial authority gives the owner written notice that the territorial authority is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the building, in its new use, will comply as nearly as is reasonably practicable, with the building code in all respects; and (b) ...
Section 45(1)(c) RTA requires a landlord to comply with the Building Act 2004 and the Buildings (Specified Systems, Change the Use, and Earthquake-prone Buildings) Regulations 2005.
The tenant claims the premises are consented for use as a “SH – single sleeping home” and the landlord has changed the use to “SR – sleeping residentially” by incorporating two separate household units within the same building. The tenant claims the landlord has not obtained Council consent for the change of use and the conversion does not comply with the building code. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant relies on the following evidence to prove their claim: a. There is one rubbish bin for the address; b. There is one letterbox for the address; and c. There is one water and power meter for the address.
The landlord accepts the above but gave evidence they are not aware of anything that prohibits them from renting the upstairs unit to the tenant in circumstances where the landlord’s family lives downstairs. The landlord gave evidence there is no firewall between the upstairs and downstairs units, but claims the downstairs unit does not have a kitchen, only a portable gas cooker.
The landlord also claims the tenant was aware of the fact that their family was living downstairs at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord claims the tenant took no issue with it at the time and have not raised it as an issue during the past two years of the tenancy. Analysis
The fact that the premises only has one letterbox, one bin, one power meter and one water meter is a red flag that this could be an unlawful residential premises. The fact there is no firewall between the upstairs and downstairs units is concerning. These issues cause me to be suspicious that the premises might only be consented for use as a SH – single sleeping home however, in the absence of any direct evidence from the Auckland Council confirming the same, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities this is the case. The types of evidence that are helpful in establishing claims for unlawful residential premises are a copy of the Land Information Memorandum (LIM), Property Information Memorandum (PIM) or even an email directly from the Auckland Council advising the consented use of the premises.
The absence of any supporting evidence from the Auckland Council means I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that this is an unlawful residential premises.
For this reason, this claim is dismissed. Should the tenant be reimbursed for outgoings paid by them during the tenancy? The law
A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises and use of the facilities. 5
Any agreement or arrangement entered into in respect of a tenancy to which the RTA applies that is inconsistent with the provisions of the RTA is of no effect unless: 6 a. The inconsistency is expressly permitted by the RTA; or b. The Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the tenancy, the provisions of the tenancy agreement, the interests of the parties, and all other relevant circumstances of the case, the inconsistency should be permitted. Evidence and submissions of the parties
Both parties accept that responsibility for water, power and internet bills were shared between the tenant and landlord’s family. There was a total of 6 people living at the premises. As a family of four, the tenant paid 4/6 of the invoices for and the landlord’s family paid 2/6.
The landlord claims this agreement was reached with the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy and the tenant never raised it as an issue. Analysis
The premises do not have a separate power, water or internet meter for the upstairs unit. This means it is impossible for the landlord to determine the tenant’s actual usage of water, electricity and internet. The requirement that the tenant pay 4/6 of the invoices is based upon an estimate of their likely usage 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 39(3). 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 11. however, a tenant is not responsible for paying for their estimated usage, only their actual usage.
Any agreement between the parties that the tenant would pay 4/6 of all outgoings is inconsistent with section 39(3) RTA, which states a tenant is only responsible for paying for outgoings that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises and use of facilities. The RTA does not expressly permit this inconsistency. Having regard to the following factors, I find the inconsistency should not be permitted: a. Compliance with the RTA is to be encouraged and the Tribunal should be slow to legitimise agreements that are inconsistent with its provisions. b. Section 39(3) RTA protects tenants by ensuring landlords do not charge them for outgoings that are not exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises or use of the facilities. The Tribunal should be especially careful to erode protective provisions like this. c. Landlords who want to rent out minor dwellings or separate parts of premises to different household units should factor in the likely cost of outgoings into the rent or install separate meters to determine actual usage. They should not be encouraged to ignore the RTA and go about matters in their own way.
The tenant wants to be compensated for the fact that they have paid for outgoings that are not exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises and use of the facilities.
The tenant submitted copies of all water, electricity and internet invoices issued throughout the tenancy. I have added up the invoices submitted. The total amount across all water invoices is $3,736.98 and the total amount across all electricity and internet invoices is $6,893.74. The tenant has paid: a. Water: $2,491.32 b. Electricity and internet: $4,595.82
The landlord is unable to prove what portion of the water, electricity and internet invoices are exclusively attributable to the tenant however, I do not think it is fair to order the landlord to repay the tenant the entire amount paid by them. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the tenant has only taken issue with the arrangement recently. Moving forward however, the tenant should not be required to pay for any outgoings that are not exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises and use of facilities.
The Tribunal is required to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants. 7 I consider the most fair and expeditious resolution of this dispute is one that requires the landlord to repay the tenant $2,000.00.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $2,000.00.

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

The law

Section 45(1)(bb) RTA requires a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards.
The healthy homes standards are found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. These regulations provide a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in respect of heating, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture and drainage. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant submitted a healthy homes inspection report completed by Imperial Insulation dated 12 June 2025. It notes the following areas of non-compliance: a. Heating b. Underfloor insulation c. Bathroom extractor fan d. Kitchen extractor fan e. Moisture and drainage f. Draught stopping
The tenant also submitted photographs of the premises which show a lot of moisture in the bathroom and on the windowsills. The photographs also show mould on the walls throughout the premises.
The landlord claims the mould in the photographs is a result of poor cleanliness by the tenant. The landlord claims the premises were provided to the tenant in a clean and tidy condition at the beginning of the tenancy. More recently, the premises have been prepared for sale and the landlord submitted photographs, which show it in a clean and tidy condition.
The landlord accepts they have not commissioned their own healthy homes inspection report. They claim the tenant never asked for one. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 85.
The landlord highlights the fact that the inspection report states there is no heating source in the living room, but the tenant installed a heat pump during the tenancy. The landlord also claims the tenant’s television is hiding a fireplace and the rangehood had a grill/filters at the beginning of the tenancy, which the tenant removed. Analysis
This tenancy began on 30 December 2023. The landlord had until 8 May 2024, which is 120 days after the tenancy began to comply with the healthy homes standards.
The landlord appears to have been unaware of what the healthy homes standards are and their need to ensure the premises complied by 8 May 2024.
The healthy homes standards do not relate to cleanliness, but concern maintenance issues like insulation, ventilation, heating, and moisture and drainage. The fact that the premises were provided to the tenant in a clean and tidy condition at the beginning of the tenancy does not help the landlord to prove that the premises are compliant. Similarly, the fact that the premises have recently been returned to a clean and tidy condition in preparation for sale does not help the landlord.
The landlord claims that the presence of mould in the photographs submitted by the tenant is a result of the tenant not cleaning the premises, rather than any non-compliance with the healthy homes standards. That submission cannot sensibly be maintained in light of the inspection report, which notes there are no extractor fans in the bathroom or kitchen, gaps in the windows, and moisture and drainage issues at the premises. All of these things are likely to contribute to increased moisture inside the premises, which causes mould to accrue.
No evidence was submitted by the landlord regarding the condition of the fire in the lounge and whether it is compliant or in working condition. No photographs of the grill/filter in the rangehood taken at the beginning of the tenancy were submitted either. Even if the tenant was responsible for removing the grill/filter, which I am not convinced they are, this does not permit the landlord to leave the rangehood in a non-compliant state.
The only submission made by the landlord which has some force is the fact that the inspection report notes there is no heating source in the main living area. A photograph of the main living area shows a heat pump is present and the tenant gave evidence that they installed the heat pump themselves at the beginning of the tenancy. This means I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the premises do not comply with the heating requirements. I do not consider this discrepancy discredits the other findings in the report. I find it more likely than not that the reason the report notes there is no heating source in the main living room is because the tenant installed the heat pump, not the landlord. It is unusual for a tenant to spend money installing a heat pump, when it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the premises comply with the healthy homes standards.
The inspection report submitted by the tenant is strong evidence that the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards. The landlord needs to submit something equally strong to counter it, which they have not done.
For these reasons, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards in the following areas: a. Underfloor insulation b. Bathroom extractor fan c. Kitchen extractor fan d. Moisture and drainage e. Draught stopping
I decline to order compensation for this breach and deal with the issue of monetary relief by way of exemplary damages instead.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to comply with the healthy homes standards is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered. 8
Landlords who choose to rent premises to tenants have a duty to educate themselves as to the legal requirements. The fact that the landlord was unaware of the standards or need to comply is not an excuse. The landlord took no steps to educate themselves and did not seek the professional assistance of a property manager. For this reason, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord acted intentionally in failing to comply with the healthy homes standards.
I consider it just to make an order for exemplary damages having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the landlord. 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1. b. The effect of the unlawful act. The photographs submitted by the tenant show a lot of moisture in the bathroom after the shower has been used. The photographs also show a lot of mould on the walls throughout the premises. It would have been an inconvenience to have to constantly ventilate the premises due to the lack of extractor fans and mould. It would also have been a health concern for the tenant to be living in premises with as much mould as is shown in the photographs. c. The tenancy agreement does not contain a healthy homes compliance statement and the tenant had to pay $345.00 to commission their own report. d. The premises have been non-compliant for over a year since 8 May 2024. e. The extent of the non-compliance is significant. The premises is non- compliant in almost every respect, except for the ceiling insulation, having windows and doors that open and close, and heating in the main living area. f. There is a high public interest in ensuring that landlords are deterred from failing to comply with the healthy homes standards.
This is a case where aggravating factors justify more than one third of the maximum amount of exemplary damages being ordered. Considering the above, I order the landlord to pay the tenant $3,000.00 in exemplary damages. Did the landlord fail to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms? The law
Section 45(1)(ba) RTA requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms. Regulation 5 of the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 states: 5Smoke alarms to be qualifying smoke alarms and installed in certain locations: tenancies other than boarding house tenancies (1)The requirements set out in subclauses (4), (6), and (8) are imposed on all landlords for the purposes of section 45(1)(ba) of the Act. (2)The requirements must be met as at the commencement of the tenancy and at all subsequent times during the tenancy. ... (4)Every smoke alarm that is installed at the premises must be a qualifying smoke alarm. ...
Regulation 7 defines what constitutes a “qualifying smoke alarm.” It relevantly states that the alarm’s recommended replacement date must not have passed. 9 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant submitted a healthy homes inspection report, which notes that the smoke alarm has expired.
The landlord claims three smoke alarms were provided at the beginning of the tenancy and were all in working order. The landlord claims the tenant has prohibited access to the premises, which has created difficulties for the landlord in ensuring that the smoke alarms are compliant. Analysis
The healthy homes inspection report records that the smoke alarm has expired. The landlord did not submit any evidence to counter this such as, photographs of the smoke alarms taken at the beginning of the tenancy or notes about the smoke alarms in the inspection report. The inspection report in the tenancy agreement has not been completed at all. In the absence of any evidence countering the findings in the healthy homes inspection report, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the recommended replacement date for the smoke alarm has passed. For this reason, I find the smoke alarm is not a qualifying smoke alarm.
Regulations 5(2) and (4) require a landlord to ensure that qualifying smoke alarms are installed in the premises at the beginning and throughout the tenancy. The healthy homes inspection report was completed on 12 June 2025 while the tenancy was ongoing. By having a non-qualifying smoke alarm in the premises during the tenancy, I find the landlord failed to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms.
The landlord claims that the reason for any non-compliance is because the tenant denied them access to the premises. The relationship between the landlord and tenant only appears to have taken a turn for the worst around March 2025, when the landlord advised the tenant of a rent increase. Prior to this, their relationship appears to have been amicable. No evidence was submitted in support of the landlord’s claim that the tenant has denied access however, even if this were the case, it does not provide a defence for the 9 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2019, regulation 7(1)(c). landlord. The landlord has a duty to actively ensure that they comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms. Where a tenant makes this difficult by denying access, the appropriate course of action is to file a claim with the Tribunal, rather than allow non-qualifying smoke alarms to remain in the premises.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 10
I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to ensure the premises had qualifying smoke alarms. This is because the landlord did not take any active steps to ensure compliance such as, recording details of the smoke alarms on the tenancy agreement or checking them during inspections.
I find it just to order exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. Having smoke alarms that are not passed their recommended replacement date is important, because it provides assurance that the smoke alarm is in good working condition. It is an important safety measure to prevent injury to the tenant, their property and the premises in the event of a fire. b. There is a high public interest in ensuring landlords are deterred from failing to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms.
Considering the above factors, I order the landlord to pay $2,400.00 in exemplary damages.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

The law

Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character or the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
It is well settled that a landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy the problem. 11 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Scheduled 1A. 11 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15].
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA however, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 12
The tenant claims the landlord failed to repair the following items within a reasonable timeframe: a. Balcony b. Rangehood c. Electric stove
I deal with each issue individually below. Balcony Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the balcony is not safe, because there are holes in the floor and the railing does not wrap all the way around. The tenant claims they mentioned this issue to the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy and in an email dated 11 March 2025. The tenant claims nothing has been done to repair the balcony.
The landlord claims the tenant’s children broke the floor on the balcony when playing soccer on it. The landlord claims they offered to repair the balcony, but the tenant wants them to replace it, which they are not willing to do. As the landlord has now decided to sell the property, they have decided they do not want to spend any money on it. Analysis
The photographs submitted by the tenant show the balcony with pieces of ply on the floor. The tenant claims the ply is covering holes, but without photographs of the actual holes, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities this is the case.
The photographs show the railing for the balcony does not go all the way around. At the end, there is a gap that presents a serious safety risk, particularly in respect of children. The balcony is high and a child could fall off and injure themselves if unsupervised.
The tenant claims they first raised the state of the balcony with the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord denies this is the case. In the absence of any supporting evidence, I am not convinced on the balance of 12 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. probabilities that the tenant alerted the landlord to the state of the balcony at the beginning of the tenancy.
The only written evidence from the tenant mentioning the balcony to the landlord is in their email dated 11 March 2025. On the balance of probabilities, I find this to be the first date the tenant raised the issue with the landlord.
The landlord claims they offered to repair the balcony, but the tenant requested that they replace it. The tenant submitted a text message sent by them to the landlord quoting $600.00 to repair the rail and ply floor of the balcony. Therefore, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant declined the landlord’s offer to repair the balcony and insisted that it be replaced. The tenant is a tradesman with the necessary skills to complete the repairs and offered to do this for the landlord. Replacing the entire balcony would most likely have exceeded $600.00.
The landlord accepts they have not made any repairs to the balcony, because the premises are going to be sold. This does not detract from the landlord’s liability to repair defects brought to their attention within a reasonable timeframe.
The tenant first reported the issue to the landlord on 11 March 2025 and as at the date of the hearing on 13 August 2025, no repairs have been done to the railing on the balcony. That is a delay of 22 weeks, which I find unreasonable considering the safety risk. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord has failed to maintain the balcony in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I consider $50.00 per week to be reasonable. In settling on this figure, I have considered the safety risk posed by the railing and the fact the tenant and their family have not been able to use the balcony in the usual way.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $1,100.00. Rangehood Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the rangehood is not safe to use because the wire is breaking and covered in red tape. The tenant also claims the grill/filter on the rangehood is missing, which prohibits it from working properly. The tenant claims they raised these issues with the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy and again in their email dated 11 March 2025.
The landlord claims the rangehood had a grill at the beginning of the tenancy and the tenant must have broken it. The landlord also claims any issue about the rangehood was not brought to their attention until 11 March 2025. The landlord accepts nothing has been done to repair the rangehood, but claims the safety concern regarding the wiring is exaggerated by the tenant and the tenant is responsible for damaging the grill/filter. Analysis
In the photographs submitted by the tenant, the rangehood wire has what appears to be electrical tape wound around it. The grill/filter is also missing from the rangehood. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the rangehood had defects that needed to be remedied.
The landlord denies that the tenant first mentioned the rangehood to them at the beginning of the tenancy. In the absence of any evidence supporting the tenant’s claim, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant first reported the issue to the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy.
I find 11 March 2025, which is the date the tenant sent their email to the landlord, to be the first time they notified the landlord about the rangehood.
I am not convinced the tenant is responsible for taking or damaging the grill/filter, as claimed by the landlord. No evidence to support this claim was submitted and the tenant denies this was the case.
The landlord accepts that they have not repaired the rangehood as at the date of the hearing on 13 August 2025. That is a delay of 22 weeks, which I consider to be unreasonable. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord failed to repair the rangehood wiring and grill/filter within a reasonable timeframe.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I consider $10.00 per week to be reasonable. In settling on this figure I have considered the fact that I have already taken the state of the rangehood into account as part of the tenant’s healthy homes claim. I must be careful not to double count for this issue.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $220.00. Electric stove Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the stove on the freestanding oven stopped working and they replaced it around May 2024. The tenant claims they told the landlord about the stove not working over the phone and also communicated with the landlord’s son over text message. The tenant claims they used a gas stove temporarily and replaced the stove when it became apparent the landlord was not going to do anything about it.
The tenant submitted an invoice for the $469.00 for the stove, together with a receipt for $155.00 for the electrical installation.
The landlord denies the stove was broken and claims it was only one year old at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord claims they completed an inspection and noticed the tenant was using a gas stove. The landlord asked the tenant where the original freestanding oven was, and the tenant told the landlord they had organised to replace it because they did not like it. Analysis
The tenant must prove that the stove on the freestanding oven was broken and that they reported this to the landlord. The landlord denies the stove was broken or that the tenant ever reported this issue to them. The tenant has not submitted any corroborating evidence to support their version of events. Therefore, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities the landlord failed to maintain the stove in a reasonable state of repair.
For this reason, this claim is dismissed.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered. 13
I have found the landlord failed to maintain the balcony and rangehood in a reasonable state of repair. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord acted intentionally. The tenant alerted the landlord to these maintenance issues on 11 March 2025 and the landlord has chosen not to do anything to remedy them.
I decline to order exemplary damages, as I do not consider it just. The landlord has only failed to maintain two items in a reasonable state of repair, which means the breach is not egregious. The lack of amenity suffered by the tenant is appropriately reflected in the amount of compensation already ordered. The level of compensation is also sufficient to address the punitive purpose of exemplary damages.

Did the landlord lodge the bond?

The law

A landlord must lodge a bond and bond lodgement form with the Bond Centre within 23 working days of payment being made. 14 Failure to do so is an unlawful 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A. 14 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 19(1)(b). act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 may be ordered. 15 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord accepts they did not lodge the bond of $2,800.00 within 23 working days of receipt. The landlord claims it slipped their mind and they have not lodged it to date. Analysis
Given the admission of the landlord, I find the bond was not lodged within 23 working days of receipt. I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord acted intentionally. The landlord claims it slipped their mind, which implies that they knew about the requirement to lodge the bond, but failed to act. Even if the landlord did not appreciate their legal obligations, this is no excuse. There are numerous problems with this tenancy, all of which are symptomatic of the fact that the landlord has not taken the necessary steps to learn about their legal obligations or employed a professional property manager to assist. Landlords who choose to rent premises to tenants have a duty to educate themselves on their responsibilities. By failing to do this, I find the landlord acted intentionally in not lodging the bond.
I consider it just to order exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The bond has not been lodged for 1.5 years. Even after receiving the tenant’s application, which included a claim for failing to lodge the bond, the landlord has not lodged the bond. b. The purpose of a bond is to provide security for the tenancy. It is not the landlord’s money to do with as they wish. The requirement to lodge a bond provides assurance to the tenant that their money will be easily recoverable at the end of the tenancy, subject to any proven claims the landlord may have against the bond. The relationship between the landlord and tenant has become very strained, which causes concern for the tenant as to whether their bond will be refunded at the end of the tenancy. c. There is a strong public interest in ensuring landlords are deterred from not lodging bonds.
Considering the above factors, I order the landlord to pay $700.00 in exemplary damages. I consider the length of time the bond has not been lodged to be an aggravating factor. 15 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 19(2) and Schedule 1A.

Did the landlord act to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

The law

A landlord must not give or purport to give a notice terminating a tenancy knowing they are not entitled under the RTA to do so. This constitutes an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00 may be ordered. 16
A landlord can terminate a fixed-term tenancy by giving notice if any of sections 55AA, 58(1)(d), (da), 59, 59A and 59B RTA. 17 A landlord can also give notice within 21 – 90 days before the expiry of the fixed-term stating the landlord’s intention not to continue with the tenancy after the expiry of the fixed- term. 18 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the landlord sent them a notice terminating the tenancy with 42 days’ notice on 10 June 2025. The expiry date in the notice is 23 July 2025. The tenant claims receiving the notice caused them a lot of stress. The tenant claims the landlord was not entitled to send the termination notice.
The landlord claims they sent the notice ending the tenancy, because the relationship with the tenant was starting to deteriorate and the tenant was behaving in a way that concerned the landlord. For example, the landlord claims the tenant was not cooperating with the real estate agent regarding the sale of the premises. The landlord also claims the tenant changed the locks without permission, refused to allow the landlord entry into the premises and used the premises for a commercial purpose. Analysis
In their notice terminating the tenancy, the landlord refers to the tenancy as being periodic, which it is not. It is a fixed-term tenancy from 30 December 2023 – 30 December 2025. A landlord can terminate a periodic tenancy by giving 42 days’ notice if certain circumstances apply, but a fixed-term tenancy cannot be terminated by giving 42 days’ notice.
None of the circumstances in sections 55AA, 58(1)(d), 59, 59A or 59B RTA apply, which would have permitted the landlord to end the fixed-term tenancy by giving notice. These sections relate to a wide range of circumstances including, where the tenant has physically assaulted the landlord, owner or a member of 16 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 60AA and Schedule 1A. 17 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 60A(2)(d) and 50(1)(a). 18 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 60A(2)(c). the landlord or owner’s family, and a charge has been filed. 19 Other examples include where a mortgagee becomes entitled to possession of the premises 20 or the premises have been destroyed or so seriously damaged as to become uninhabitable. 21
The landlord’s termination notice dated 10 June 2025 is invalid and of no effect. By giving the tenant an invalid notice terminating the tenancy, I find the landlord purported to terminate the tenancy in circumstances where they knew they were not entitled under the RTA to do so. The fact that the landlord may not have appreciated that a fixed-term tenancy cannot be terminated by giving 42 days’ notice is irrelevant. This is not a case where the landlord has miscalculated the notice period by a couple of days. The level of negligence far exceeds this. The landlord does not even appear to have appreciated what type of tenancy this is.
I decline to order compensation for this breach and deal with the issue of monetary relief by way of exemplary damages instead.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Terminating a tenancy is a serious matter and care must be taken by landlords to ensure they comply with the RTA. Inadequate care was taken by the landlord in this case and despite their lack of knowledge, they chose to send a notice terminating the tenancy. In doing so, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord acted intentionally.
It is just to order exemplary damages because: a. I accept the tenant’s evidence that it was very stressful to receive a notice terminating the tenancy within 42 days. This is not a lot of time to find a new tenancy and move all of the one’s belongings. b. The tenant believed the notice was enforceable at first, until they rang Tenancy Services who advised it was not. c. There is a high public interest in ensuring landlords are deterred from giving notices purporting to terminate tenancies in circumstances where they are entitled to do so.
Considering these factors, I order the landlord to pay the tenant $2,000.00. In settling on this figure, I have had regard to the fact that the tenant did not act on the notice after receiving it and as at the date of the hearing, the tenancy is 19 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 55A. 20 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 58(1)(d). 21 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 59. ongoing. If this were not the case, the amount of exemplary damages ordered would have been higher. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? The law
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” The Act further confirms that contravention of subsection 2 in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00 may be ordered. 22
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the RTA. In MacDonald v Dodds (CIV- 2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010) the District Court adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The court accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
A single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment is unlikely to amount to harassment however, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Tribunal noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.” Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the landlord has harassed them by sending multiple threatening emails. The tenant also claims that receiving the invalid termination notice breached their quiet enjoyment.
The landlord denies sending the tenant multiple threatening emails and claims the termination notice gave the tenant six weeks’ notice, not four. The landlord claims the tenant’s quiet enjoyment was not breached because the tenant has not left the premises pursuant to the notice. Analysis 22 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 38(3) and Schedule 1A.
The only emails submitted by the tenant record the landlord advising the tenant: a. That the premises are to be advertised for sale; b. Following up with the tenant on missed rent payments; and c. Advising the tenant of a rent increase.
The content of the emails is respectful and not threatening. The tenant has not submitted sufficient evidence to convince me that the landlord has harassed them by sending multiple threatening emails.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that receiving an invalid termination notice was stressful. On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant’s peace and comfort in the use of the premises was infringed by the landlord’s notice.
I decline to order compensation or exemplary damages for this breach, as it overlaps with the tenant’s claim that the landlord terminated the tenancy without grounds. It would not be fair to order the landlord to pay further compensation or exemplary damages for the same thing.

Did the landlord impose an unlawful rent increase?

The law

A landlord may not increase the rent during a fixed-term tenancy unless permitted by the provisions of the tenancy agreement and: 23 a. The landlord gives the tenant notice in writing of the increase; and b. The notice specifies the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable; and c. The day upon which the increased rent shall become payable is no less than 60 days after the date on which the notice was given; and d. The rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date of the commencement of the tenancy; and e. The rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date on which the last increase took effect. Analysis 23 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 24.
This is a fixed-term tenancy however, the tenancy agreement contains a provision permitting the landlord to increase the rent.
The landlord emailed the tenant notice of the rent increase on 9 March 2025. In their email, the landlord states that the rent will increase by $30.00 per week from $700.00 to $730.00 from 9 May 2025. This is more than 60 days after the notice was given. It is also more than 12 months after the tenancy began and is the only rent increase the tenant has received during the tenancy.
The tenancy agreement permits the landlord to increase the rent and the notice given by the landlord complies with the requirements under section 24 RTA. Therefore, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the rent increase was unlawful and this claim is dismissed. Filing fee & name suppression
The tenant has been substantially successful in their claim. Therefore, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I also grant the tenant’s request for name suppression.
I have a discretion to grant the landlord name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
Publication of the landlord’s name might be embarrassing and negatively affect their reputation however these are ordinary consequences. They are not special or unique. There is a high public interest in ensuring prospective tenants know the name of the landlord in this case so, that they can prevent the same issues arising.
I have considered the interests of the parties and the public. The public interest in publication outweighs the landlord’s interest in suppression. For this reason, I decline to grant the landlord name suppression.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5288988 — net $11,347.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Reimbursement for outgoings	$2,000.00	Reimbursement for outgoings
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards	$3,000.00	Failure to comply with healthy homes standards
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms	$2,400.00	92. Considering the above factors, I order the landlord to pay $2,400.00 in exemplary damages.
Compensation: Failure to maintain the balcony	$1,100.00	Failure to maintain the balcony
Compensation: Failure to maintain the rangehood	$120.00	Failure to maintain the rangehood
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge the bond	$700.00	130. Considering the above factors, I order the landlord to pay $700.00 in exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages: Landlord acting to terminate the tenancy without grounds	$2,000.00	Landlord acting to terminate the tenancy without grounds
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$11,347.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$11,347.00

Claims and awards for application 5288988 — net $11,347.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: Reimbursement for outgoings

Amount: $2,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Reimbursement for outgoings

Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards

Amount: $3,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to comply with healthy homes standards

Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms

Amount: $2,400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: 92. Considering the above factors, I order the landlord to pay $2,400.00 in exemplary damages.

Compensation: Failure to maintain the balcony

Amount: $1,100.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain the balcony

Compensation: Failure to maintain the rangehood

Amount: $120.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Replace Smoke Alarms Exemplary damages Filing Fee

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 13 August 2025.
The tenancy began on 13 December 2023 and is for a fixed-term ending on 13 December 2025. The premises are two storeyed. The tenant lives upstairs and members of the landlord’s family live downstairs. The tenant claims the premises are unlawful. The tenant also claims the landlord has breached numerous obligations including, failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, not complying with the healthy homes standards, breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and unlawfully increasing the rent. The issues I must determine are: a. Is this an unlawful residential premises? b. Should the tenant be reimbursed for outgoings paid by them? c. Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards? d. Did the landlord fail to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms? e. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? f. Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond? g. Did the landlord act to terminate the tenancy without grounds? h. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? i. Did the landlord impose an unlawful rent increase?
Approximately half-way through the hearing on 13 August 2025, the landlord mentioned that they wanted to discuss their claim. No cross-application had been filed and I was not aware of any claim the landlord had. As we were halfway through a full-day hearing and an interpreter was present, I decided to finish hearing the tenant’s claim. I agreed to adjourn the hearing at the end of the day to allow the landlord a further opportunity to file a cross-application. I was lenient to the landlord in allowing this because I recognised that they are not experienced with the Tribunal proceedings and English is their second language. In an order dated 14 August 2025, I directed the landlord to file their cross-application by 21 August 2025. They did not do this and asked for an extension to file their application on 15 October 2025. I declined this request, because it only allowed the tenant two and a half weeks to prepare a response before the hearing on 3 November 2025. The Tribunal also has an obligation to determine disputes expeditiously. 1 It remains an option for the landlord to file their own application, which may be heard and determined at a later date. Standard of proof
As the applicant, the tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Compensation and exemplary damages – the law generally
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages for alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by the landlord.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the following factors are relevant when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 85(1).
Exemplary damages are different from compensation. They are designed to punish and deter. They are like a fine.
Under the RTA, exemplary damages may be ordered for defined unlawful acts.
Section 109(3) RTA states that exemplary damages may be ordered if the Tribunal determines an unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just, having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal that: 2 Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
The usual approach of the Tribunal is to award one third of the maximum of exemplary damages, unless there are aggravating or excusing factors in play. 3 TENANT’S CLAIMS

Is this an unlawful residential premises?

The law

Section 36 RTA requires a landlord to take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes. 2 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92 3 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781.
Section 45(1)(c) RTA requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as the apply to the premises.
Section 78A(2) defines “unlawful residential premises” as meaning residential premises that are used for the occupation of a person as a place of residence, but: a. That cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes by that person (whether generally or whether for the particular residential purposes for which that person is granted occupation); and b. Where the landlord’s failure to comply with their obligations under section 36 or 45(1)(c), ..., has caused the occupation by that person to be unlawful or has contributed to that unlawful occupation.
The first step in determining whether premises are unlawful is there needs to be a finding that the property cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes. This involves making a finding that the whole property has some sort of regulatory failure which means it cannot be occupied as a residential dwelling. In other words, the unlawfulness has been more than, say, just an “outstanding permit for a bathroom.” 4
Prior cases where the Tribunal has found premises to be unlawful appear to fall broadly into one or more of the following categories: a. Unconsented premises. In other words, 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 the Council. c. Cases where garages, basement conversions or parts of premises being used as 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. The premises themselves may have had the necessary building consents but there is no Council approval for the use of the premises as a separate household unit.
The tenant submits that the third category applies to this case. The tenant claims there has been a conversion of the tenancy address into two separate premises occupied by different household units without Council consent as to the change of use. The tenant lives on the top floor and the landlord’s family lives on the bottom floor.
Regulation 6 of the Buildings (Specified Systems, Change the Use, and Earthquake-prone Buildings) Regulations 2005 states that every building or part 4 Mansfield v Silk and another [020] NZTT 4246581, at [16]. of a building has a specified use according to the table in Schedule 2. The following uses are relevant for residential purposes: SA (Sleeping Accommodation) spaces providing transient accommodation, or whether limited assistance or care is provided for people motels, hotels, hostels, boarding houses, clubs (residential), boarding schools, dormitories, halls, wharenui SR (Sleeping Residential)attached and multi-unit residential dwellings, including household units attached to spaces or dwellings with the same or other uses, such as caretakers’ flats, and residential accommodation above a shop multi-unit dwellings, flats, or apartments SH (Sleeping Single Home)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 garages (whether detached or part of the same building) if primarily for storage of the occupants’ vehicles, tools, and garden implements dwellings or houses separated from each other by distance
Section 115 of the Building Act 2004 prohibits an owner of a building from changing the use of the building – (a) in a case where the change involves the incorporation in the building of 1 or more household units where household units did not exist before, unless the territorial authority gives the owner written notice that the territorial authority is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the building, in its new use, will comply as nearly as is reasonably practicable, with the building code in all respects; and (b) ...
Section 45(1)(c) RTA requires a landlord to comply with the Building Act 2004 and the Buildings (Specified Systems, Change the Use, and Earthquake-prone Buildings) Regulations 2005.
The tenant claims the premises are consented for use as a “SH – single sleeping home” and the landlord has changed the use to “SR – sleeping residentially” by incorporating two separate household units within the same building. The tenant claims the landlord has not obtained Council consent for the change of use and the conversion does not comply with the building code. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant relies on the following evidence to prove their claim: a. There is one rubbish bin for the address; b. There is one letterbox for the address; and c. There is one water and power meter for the address.
The landlord accepts the above but gave evidence they are not aware of anything that prohibits them from renting the upstairs unit to the tenant in circumstances where the landlord’s family lives downstairs. The landlord gave evidence there is no firewall between the upstairs and downstairs units, but claims the downstairs unit does not have a kitchen, only a portable gas cooker.
The landlord also claims the tenant was aware of the fact that their family was living downstairs at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord claims the tenant took no issue with it at the time and have not raised it as an issue during the past two years of the tenancy. Analysis
The fact that the premises only has one letterbox, one bin, one power meter and one water meter is a red flag that this could be an unlawful residential premises. The fact there is no firewall between the upstairs and downstairs units is concerning. These issues cause me to be suspicious that the premises might only be consented for use as a SH – single sleeping home however, in the absence of any direct evidence from the Auckland Council confirming the same, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities this is the case. The types of evidence that are helpful in establishing claims for unlawful residential premises are a copy of the Land Information Memorandum (LIM), Property Information Memorandum (PIM) or even an email directly from the Auckland Council advising the consented use of the premises.
The absence of any supporting evidence from the Auckland Council means I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that this is an unlawful residential premises.
For this reason, this claim is dismissed. Should the tenant be reimbursed for outgoings paid by them during the tenancy? The law
A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises and use of the facilities. 5
Any agreement or arrangement entered into in respect of a tenancy to which the RTA applies that is inconsistent with the provisions of the RTA is of no effect unless: 6 a. The inconsistency is expressly permitted by the RTA; or b. The Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the tenancy, the provisions of the tenancy agreement, the interests of the parties, and all other relevant circumstances of the case, the inconsistency should be permitted. Evidence and submissions of the parties
Both parties accept that responsibility for water, power and internet bills were shared between the tenant and landlord’s family. There was a total of 6 people living at the premises. As a family of four, the tenant paid 4/6 of the invoices for and the landlord’s family paid 2/6.
The landlord claims this agreement was reached with the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy and the tenant never raised it as an issue. Analysis
The premises do not have a separate power, water or internet meter for the upstairs unit. This means it is impossible for the landlord to determine the tenant’s actual usage of water, electricity and internet. The requirement that the tenant pay 4/6 of the invoices is based upon an estimate of their likely usage 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 39(3). 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 11. however, a tenant is not responsible for paying for their estimated usage, only their actual usage.
Any agreement between the parties that the tenant would pay 4/6 of all outgoings is inconsistent with section 39(3) RTA, which states a tenant is only responsible for paying for outgoings that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises and use of facilities. The RTA does not expressly permit this inconsistency. Having regard to the following factors, I find the inconsistency should not be permitted: a. Compliance with the RTA is to be encouraged and the Tribunal should be slow to legitimise agreements that are inconsistent with its provisions. b. Section 39(3) RTA protects tenants by ensuring landlords do not charge them for outgoings that are not exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises or use of the facilities. The Tribunal should be especially careful to erode protective provisions like this. c. Landlords who want to rent out minor dwellings or separate parts of premises to different household units should factor in the likely cost of outgoings into the rent or install separate meters to determine actual usage. They should not be encouraged to ignore the RTA and go about matters in their own way.
The tenant wants to be compensated for the fact that they have paid for outgoings that are not exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises and use of the facilities.
The tenant submitted copies of all water, electricity and internet invoices issued throughout the tenancy. I have added up the invoices submitted. The total amount across all water invoices is $3,736.98 and the total amount across all electricity and internet invoices is $6,893.74. The tenant has paid: a. Water: $2,491.32 b. Electricity and internet: $4,595.82
The landlord is unable to prove what portion of the water, electricity and internet invoices are exclusively attributable to the tenant however, I do not think it is fair to order the landlord to repay the tenant the entire amount paid by them. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the tenant has only taken issue with the arrangement recently. Moving forward however, the tenant should not be required to pay for any outgoings that are not exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises and use of facilities.
The Tribunal is required to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants. 7 I consider the most fair and expeditious resolution of this dispute is one that requires the landlord to repay the tenant $2,000.00.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $2,000.00.

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

The law

Section 45(1)(bb) RTA requires a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards.
The healthy homes standards are found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. These regulations provide a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in respect of heating, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture and drainage. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant submitted a healthy homes inspection report completed by Imperial Insulation dated 12 June 2025. It notes the following areas of non-compliance: a. Heating b. Underfloor insulation c. Bathroom extractor fan d. Kitchen extractor fan e. Moisture and drainage f. Draught stopping
The tenant also submitted photographs of the premises which show a lot of moisture in the bathroom and on the windowsills. The photographs also show mould on the walls throughout the premises.
The landlord claims the mould in the photographs is a result of poor cleanliness by the tenant. The landlord claims the premises were provided to the tenant in a clean and tidy condition at the beginning of the tenancy. More recently, the premises have been prepared for sale and the landlord submitted photographs, which show it in a clean and tidy condition.
The landlord accepts they have not commissioned their own healthy homes inspection report. They claim the tenant never asked for one. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 85.
The landlord highlights the fact that the inspection report states there is no heating source in the living room, but the tenant installed a heat pump during the tenancy. The landlord also claims the tenant’s television is hiding a fireplace and the rangehood had a grill/filters at the beginning of the tenancy, which the tenant removed. Analysis
This tenancy began on 30 December 2023. The landlord had until 8 May 2024, which is 120 days after the tenancy began to comply with the healthy homes standards.
The landlord appears to have been unaware of what the healthy homes standards are and their need to ensure the premises complied by 8 May 2024.
The healthy homes standards do not relate to cleanliness, but concern maintenance issues like insulation, ventilation, heating, and moisture and drainage. The fact that the premises were provided to the tenant in a clean and tidy condition at the beginning of the tenancy does not help the landlord to prove that the premises are compliant. Similarly, the fact that the premises have recently been returned to a clean and tidy condition in preparation for sale does not help the landlord.
The landlord claims that the presence of mould in the photographs submitted by the tenant is a result of the tenant not cleaning the premises, rather than any non-compliance with the healthy homes standards. That submission cannot sensibly be maintained in light of the inspection report, which notes there are no extractor fans in the bathroom or kitchen, gaps in the windows, and moisture and drainage issues at the premises. All of these things are likely to contribute to increased moisture inside the premises, which causes mould to accrue.
No evidence was submitted by the landlord regarding the condition of the fire in the lounge and whether it is compliant or in working condition. No photographs of the grill/filter in the rangehood taken at the beginning of the tenancy were submitted either. Even if the tenant was responsible for removing the grill/filter, which I am not convinced they are, this does not permit the landlord to leave the rangehood in a non-compliant state.
The only submission made by the landlord which has some force is the fact that the inspection report notes there is no heating source in the main living area. A photograph of the main living area shows a heat pump is present and the tenant gave evidence that they installed the heat pump themselves at the beginning of the tenancy. This means I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the premises do not comply with the heating requirements. I do not consider this discrepancy discredits the other findings in the report. I find it more likely than not that the reason the report notes there is no heating source in the main living room is because the tenant installed the heat pump, not the landlord. It is unusual for a tenant to spend money installing a heat pump, when it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the premises comply with the healthy homes standards.
The inspection report submitted by the tenant is strong evidence that the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards. The landlord needs to submit something equally strong to counter it, which they have not done.
For these reasons, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the premises do not comply with the healthy homes standards in the following areas: a. Underfloor insulation b. Bathroom extractor fan c. Kitchen extractor fan d. Moisture and drainage e. Draught stopping
I decline to order compensation for this breach and deal with the issue of monetary relief by way of exemplary damages instead.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to comply with the healthy homes standards is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered. 8
Landlords who choose to rent premises to tenants have a duty to educate themselves as to the legal requirements. The fact that the landlord was unaware of the standards or need to comply is not an excuse. The landlord took no steps to educate themselves and did not seek the professional assistance of a property manager. For this reason, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord acted intentionally in failing to comply with the healthy homes standards.
I consider it just to make an order for exemplary damages having regard to the following factors: a. The intent of the landlord. 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1. b. The effect of the unlawful act. The photographs submitted by the tenant show a lot of moisture in the bathroom after the shower has been used. The photographs also show a lot of mould on the walls throughout the premises. It would have been an inconvenience to have to constantly ventilate the premises due to the lack of extractor fans and mould. It would also have been a health concern for the tenant to be living in premises with as much mould as is shown in the photographs. c. The tenancy agreement does not contain a healthy homes compliance statement and the tenant had to pay $345.00 to commission their own report. d. The premises have been non-compliant for over a year since 8 May 2024. e. The extent of the non-compliance is significant. The premises is non- compliant in almost every respect, except for the ceiling insulation, having windows and doors that open and close, and heating in the main living area. f. There is a high public interest in ensuring that landlords are deterred from failing to comply with the healthy homes standards.
This is a case where aggravating factors justify more than one third of the maximum amount of exemplary damages being ordered. Considering the above, I order the landlord to pay the tenant $3,000.00 in exemplary damages. Did the landlord fail to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms? The law
Section 45(1)(ba) RTA requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms. Regulation 5 of the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 states: 5Smoke alarms to be qualifying smoke alarms and installed in certain locations: tenancies other than boarding house tenancies (1)The requirements set out in subclauses (4), (6), and (8) are imposed on all landlords for the purposes of section 45(1)(ba) of the Act. (2)The requirements must be met as at the commencement of the tenancy and at all subsequent times during the tenancy. ... (4)Every smoke alarm that is installed at the premises must be a qualifying smoke alarm. ...
Regulation 7 defines what constitutes a “qualifying smoke alarm.” It relevantly states that the alarm’s recommended replacement date must not have passed. 9 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant submitted a healthy homes inspection report, which notes that the smoke alarm has expired.
The landlord claims three smoke alarms were provided at the beginning of the tenancy and were all in working order. The landlord claims the tenant has prohibited access to the premises, which has created difficulties for the landlord in ensuring that the smoke alarms are compliant. Analysis
The healthy homes inspection report records that the smoke alarm has expired. The landlord did not submit any evidence to counter this such as, photographs of the smoke alarms taken at the beginning of the tenancy or notes about the smoke alarms in the inspection report. The inspection report in the tenancy agreement has not been completed at all. In the absence of any evidence countering the findings in the healthy homes inspection report, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the recommended replacement date for the smoke alarm has passed. For this reason, I find the smoke alarm is not a qualifying smoke alarm.
Regulations 5(2) and (4) require a landlord to ensure that qualifying smoke alarms are installed in the premises at the beginning and throughout the tenancy. The healthy homes inspection report was completed on 12 June 2025 while the tenancy was ongoing. By having a non-qualifying smoke alarm in the premises during the tenancy, I find the landlord failed to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms.
The landlord claims that the reason for any non-compliance is because the tenant denied them access to the premises. The relationship between the landlord and tenant only appears to have taken a turn for the worst around March 2025, when the landlord advised the tenant of a rent increase. Prior to this, their relationship appears to have been amicable. No evidence was submitted in support of the landlord’s claim that the tenant has denied access however, even if this were the case, it does not provide a defence for the 9 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2019, regulation 7(1)(c). landlord. The landlord has a duty to actively ensure that they comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms. Where a tenant makes this difficult by denying access, the appropriate course of action is to file a claim with the Tribunal, rather than allow non-qualifying smoke alarms to remain in the premises.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 10
I find the landlord acted intentionally in failing to ensure the premises had qualifying smoke alarms. This is because the landlord did not take any active steps to ensure compliance such as, recording details of the smoke alarms on the tenancy agreement or checking them during inspections.
I find it just to order exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. Having smoke alarms that are not passed their recommended replacement date is important, because it provides assurance that the smoke alarm is in good working condition. It is an important safety measure to prevent injury to the tenant, their property and the premises in the event of a fire. b. There is a high public interest in ensuring landlords are deterred from failing to comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms.
Considering the above factors, I order the landlord to pay $2,400.00 in exemplary damages.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

The law

Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character or the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
It is well settled that a landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy the problem. 11 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Scheduled 1A. 11 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15].
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA however, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 12
The tenant claims the landlord failed to repair the following items within a reasonable timeframe: a. Balcony b. Rangehood c. Electric stove
I deal with each issue individually below. Balcony Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the balcony is not safe, because there are holes in the floor and the railing does not wrap all the way around. The tenant claims they mentioned this issue to the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy and in an email dated 11 March 2025. The tenant claims nothing has been done to repair the balcony.
The landlord claims the tenant’s children broke the floor on the balcony when playing soccer on it. The landlord claims they offered to repair the balcony, but the tenant wants them to replace it, which they are not willing to do. As the landlord has now decided to sell the property, they have decided they do not want to spend any money on it. Analysis
The photographs submitted by the tenant show the balcony with pieces of ply on the floor. The tenant claims the ply is covering holes, but without photographs of the actual holes, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities this is the case.
The photographs show the railing for the balcony does not go all the way around. At the end, there is a gap that presents a serious safety risk, particularly in respect of children. The balcony is high and a child could fall off and injure themselves if unsupervised.
The tenant claims they first raised the state of the balcony with the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord denies this is the case. In the absence of any supporting evidence, I am not convinced on the balance of 12 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. probabilities that the tenant alerted the landlord to the state of the balcony at the beginning of the tenancy.
The only written evidence from the tenant mentioning the balcony to the landlord is in their email dated 11 March 2025. On the balance of probabilities, I find this to be the first date the tenant raised the issue with the landlord.
The landlord claims they offered to repair the balcony, but the tenant requested that they replace it. The tenant submitted a text message sent by them to the landlord quoting $600.00 to repair the rail and ply floor of the balcony. Therefore, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant declined the landlord’s offer to repair the balcony and insisted that it be replaced. The tenant is a tradesman with the necessary skills to complete the repairs and offered to do this for the landlord. Replacing the entire balcony would most likely have exceeded $600.00.
The landlord accepts they have not made any repairs to the balcony, because the premises are going to be sold. This does not detract from the landlord’s liability to repair defects brought to their attention within a reasonable timeframe.
The tenant first reported the issue to the landlord on 11 March 2025 and as at the date of the hearing on 13 August 2025, no repairs have been done to the railing on the balcony. That is a delay of 22 weeks, which I find unreasonable considering the safety risk. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord has failed to maintain the balcony in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I consider $50.00 per week to be reasonable. In settling on this figure, I have considered the safety risk posed by the railing and the fact the tenant and their family have not been able to use the balcony in the usual way.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $1,100.00. Rangehood Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the rangehood is not safe to use because the wire is breaking and covered in red tape. The tenant also claims the grill/filter on the rangehood is missing, which prohibits it from working properly. The tenant claims they raised these issues with the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy and again in their email dated 11 March 2025.
The landlord claims the rangehood had a grill at the beginning of the tenancy and the tenant must have broken it. The landlord also claims any issue about the rangehood was not brought to their attention until 11 March 2025. The landlord accepts nothing has been done to repair the rangehood, but claims the safety concern regarding the wiring is exaggerated by the tenant and the tenant is responsible for damaging the grill/filter. Analysis
In the photographs submitted by the tenant, the rangehood wire has what appears to be electrical tape wound around it. The grill/filter is also missing from the rangehood. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the rangehood had defects that needed to be remedied.
The landlord denies that the tenant first mentioned the rangehood to them at the beginning of the tenancy. In the absence of any evidence supporting the tenant’s claim, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant first reported the issue to the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy.
I find 11 March 2025, which is the date the tenant sent their email to the landlord, to be the first time they notified the landlord about the rangehood.
I am not convinced the tenant is responsible for taking or damaging the grill/filter, as claimed by the landlord. No evidence to support this claim was submitted and the tenant denies this was the case.
The landlord accepts that they have not repaired the rangehood as at the date of the hearing on 13 August 2025. That is a delay of 22 weeks, which I consider to be unreasonable. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord failed to repair the rangehood wiring and grill/filter within a reasonable timeframe.
The tenant seeks compensation for this breach. I consider $10.00 per week to be reasonable. In settling on this figure I have considered the fact that I have already taken the state of the rangehood into account as part of the tenant’s healthy homes claim. I must be careful not to double count for this issue.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for $220.00. Electric stove Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the stove on the freestanding oven stopped working and they replaced it around May 2024. The tenant claims they told the landlord about the stove not working over the phone and also communicated with the landlord’s son over text message. The tenant claims they used a gas stove temporarily and replaced the stove when it became apparent the landlord was not going to do anything about it.
The tenant submitted an invoice for the $469.00 for the stove, together with a receipt for $155.00 for the electrical installation.
The landlord denies the stove was broken and claims it was only one year old at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord claims they completed an inspection and noticed the tenant was using a gas stove. The landlord asked the tenant where the original freestanding oven was, and the tenant told the landlord they had organised to replace it because they did not like it. Analysis
The tenant must prove that the stove on the freestanding oven was broken and that they reported this to the landlord. The landlord denies the stove was broken or that the tenant ever reported this issue to them. The tenant has not submitted any corroborating evidence to support their version of events. Therefore, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities the landlord failed to maintain the stove in a reasonable state of repair.
For this reason, this claim is dismissed.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be ordered. 13
I have found the landlord failed to maintain the balcony and rangehood in a reasonable state of repair. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the landlord acted intentionally. The tenant alerted the landlord to these maintenance issues on 11 March 2025 and the landlord has chosen not to do anything to remedy them.
I decline to order exemplary damages, as I do not consider it just. The landlord has only failed to maintain two items in a reasonable state of repair, which means the breach is not egregious. The lack of amenity suffered by the tenant is appropriately reflected in the amount of compensation already ordered. The level of compensation is also sufficient to address the punitive purpose of exemplary damages.

Did the landlord lodge the bond?

The law

A landlord must lodge a bond and bond lodgement form with the Bond Centre within 23 working days of payment being made. 14 Failure to do so is an unlawful 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A. 14 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 19(1)(b). act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 may be ordered. 15 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord accepts they did not lodge the bond of $2,800.00 within 23 working days of receipt. The landlord claims it slipped their mind and they have not lodged it to date. Analysis
Given the admission of the landlord, I find the bond was not lodged within 23 working days of receipt. I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord acted intentionally. The landlord claims it slipped their mind, which implies that they knew about the requirement to lodge the bond, but failed to act. Even if the landlord did not appreciate their legal obligations, this is no excuse. There are numerous problems with this tenancy, all of which are symptomatic of the fact that the landlord has not taken the necessary steps to learn about their legal obligations or employed a professional property manager to assist. Landlords who choose to rent premises to tenants have a duty to educate themselves on their responsibilities. By failing to do this, I find the landlord acted intentionally in not lodging the bond.
I consider it just to order exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The bond has not been lodged for 1.5 years. Even after receiving the tenant’s application, which included a claim for failing to lodge the bond, the landlord has not lodged the bond. b. The purpose of a bond is to provide security for the tenancy. It is not the landlord’s money to do with as they wish. The requirement to lodge a bond provides assurance to the tenant that their money will be easily recoverable at the end of the tenancy, subject to any proven claims the landlord may have against the bond. The relationship between the landlord and tenant has become very strained, which causes concern for the tenant as to whether their bond will be refunded at the end of the tenancy. c. There is a strong public interest in ensuring landlords are deterred from not lodging bonds.
Considering the above factors, I order the landlord to pay $700.00 in exemplary damages. I consider the length of time the bond has not been lodged to be an aggravating factor. 15 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 19(2) and Schedule 1A.

Did the landlord act to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

The law

A landlord must not give or purport to give a notice terminating a tenancy knowing they are not entitled under the RTA to do so. This constitutes an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00 may be ordered. 16
A landlord can terminate a fixed-term tenancy by giving notice if any of sections 55AA, 58(1)(d), (da), 59, 59A and 59B RTA. 17 A landlord can also give notice within 21 – 90 days before the expiry of the fixed-term stating the landlord’s intention not to continue with the tenancy after the expiry of the fixed- term. 18 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the landlord sent them a notice terminating the tenancy with 42 days’ notice on 10 June 2025. The expiry date in the notice is 23 July 2025. The tenant claims receiving the notice caused them a lot of stress. The tenant claims the landlord was not entitled to send the termination notice.
The landlord claims they sent the notice ending the tenancy, because the relationship with the tenant was starting to deteriorate and the tenant was behaving in a way that concerned the landlord. For example, the landlord claims the tenant was not cooperating with the real estate agent regarding the sale of the premises. The landlord also claims the tenant changed the locks without permission, refused to allow the landlord entry into the premises and used the premises for a commercial purpose. Analysis
In their notice terminating the tenancy, the landlord refers to the tenancy as being periodic, which it is not. It is a fixed-term tenancy from 30 December 2023 – 30 December 2025. A landlord can terminate a periodic tenancy by giving 42 days’ notice if certain circumstances apply, but a fixed-term tenancy cannot be terminated by giving 42 days’ notice.
None of the circumstances in sections 55AA, 58(1)(d), 59, 59A or 59B RTA apply, which would have permitted the landlord to end the fixed-term tenancy by giving notice. These sections relate to a wide range of circumstances including, where the tenant has physically assaulted the landlord, owner or a member of 16 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 60AA and Schedule 1A. 17 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 60A(2)(d) and 50(1)(a). 18 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 60A(2)(c). the landlord or owner’s family, and a charge has been filed. 19 Other examples include where a mortgagee becomes entitled to possession of the premises 20 or the premises have been destroyed or so seriously damaged as to become uninhabitable. 21
The landlord’s termination notice dated 10 June 2025 is invalid and of no effect. By giving the tenant an invalid notice terminating the tenancy, I find the landlord purported to terminate the tenancy in circumstances where they knew they were not entitled under the RTA to do so. The fact that the landlord may not have appreciated that a fixed-term tenancy cannot be terminated by giving 42 days’ notice is irrelevant. This is not a case where the landlord has miscalculated the notice period by a couple of days. The level of negligence far exceeds this. The landlord does not even appear to have appreciated what type of tenancy this is.
I decline to order compensation for this breach and deal with the issue of monetary relief by way of exemplary damages instead.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Terminating a tenancy is a serious matter and care must be taken by landlords to ensure they comply with the RTA. Inadequate care was taken by the landlord in this case and despite their lack of knowledge, they chose to send a notice terminating the tenancy. In doing so, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord acted intentionally.
It is just to order exemplary damages because: a. I accept the tenant’s evidence that it was very stressful to receive a notice terminating the tenancy within 42 days. This is not a lot of time to find a new tenancy and move all of the one’s belongings. b. The tenant believed the notice was enforceable at first, until they rang Tenancy Services who advised it was not. c. There is a high public interest in ensuring landlords are deterred from giving notices purporting to terminate tenancies in circumstances where they are entitled to do so.
Considering these factors, I order the landlord to pay the tenant $2,000.00. In settling on this figure, I have had regard to the fact that the tenant did not act on the notice after receiving it and as at the date of the hearing, the tenancy is 19 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 55A. 20 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 58(1)(d). 21 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 59. ongoing. If this were not the case, the amount of exemplary damages ordered would have been higher. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? The law
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” The Act further confirms that contravention of subsection 2 in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00 may be ordered. 22
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the RTA. In MacDonald v Dodds (CIV- 2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010) the District Court adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The court accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
A single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment is unlikely to amount to harassment however, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Tribunal noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.” Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the landlord has harassed them by sending multiple threatening emails. The tenant also claims that receiving the invalid termination notice breached their quiet enjoyment.
The landlord denies sending the tenant multiple threatening emails and claims the termination notice gave the tenant six weeks’ notice, not four. The landlord claims the tenant’s quiet enjoyment was not breached because the tenant has not left the premises pursuant to the notice. Analysis 22 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 38(3) and Schedule 1A.
The only emails submitted by the tenant record the landlord advising the tenant: a. That the premises are to be advertised for sale; b. Following up with the tenant on missed rent payments; and c. Advising the tenant of a rent increase.
The content of the emails is respectful and not threatening. The tenant has not submitted sufficient evidence to convince me that the landlord has harassed them by sending multiple threatening emails.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that receiving an invalid termination notice was stressful. On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant’s peace and comfort in the use of the premises was infringed by the landlord’s notice.
I decline to order compensation or exemplary damages for this breach, as it overlaps with the tenant’s claim that the landlord terminated the tenancy without grounds. It would not be fair to order the landlord to pay further compensation or exemplary damages for the same thing.

Did the landlord impose an unlawful rent increase?

The law

A landlord may not increase the rent during a fixed-term tenancy unless permitted by the provisions of the tenancy agreement and: 23 a. The landlord gives the tenant notice in writing of the increase; and b. The notice specifies the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable; and c. The day upon which the increased rent shall become payable is no less than 60 days after the date on which the notice was given; and d. The rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date of the commencement of the tenancy; and e. The rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date on which the last increase took effect. Analysis 23 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 24.
This is a fixed-term tenancy however, the tenancy agreement contains a provision permitting the landlord to increase the rent.
The landlord emailed the tenant notice of the rent increase on 9 March 2025. In their email, the landlord states that the rent will increase by $30.00 per week from $700.00 to $730.00 from 9 May 2025. This is more than 60 days after the notice was given. It is also more than 12 months after the tenancy began and is the only rent increase the tenant has received during the tenancy.
The tenancy agreement permits the landlord to increase the rent and the notice given by the landlord complies with the requirements under section 24 RTA. Therefore, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the rent increase was unlawful and this claim is dismissed. Filing fee & name suppression
The tenant has been substantially successful in their claim. Therefore, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I also grant the tenant’s request for name suppression.
I have a discretion to grant the landlord name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
Publication of the landlord’s name might be embarrassing and negatively affect their reputation however these are ordinary consequences. They are not special or unique. There is a high public interest in ensuring prospective tenants know the name of the landlord in this case so, that they can prevent the same issues arising.
I have considered the interests of the parties and the public. The public interest in publication outweighs the landlord’s interest in suppression. For this reason, I decline to grant the landlord name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5288988 — Healthy homes at 12 Staines Avenue, Mangere East, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5288988 — Healthy homes at 12 Staines Avenue, Mangere East, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is this an unlawful residential premises?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Did the landlord lodge the bond?

Did the landlord act to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Did the landlord impose an unlawful rent increase?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is this an unlawful residential premises?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the healthy homes standards?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Did the landlord lodge the bond?

Did the landlord act to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Did the landlord impose an unlawful rent increase?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions