What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5296203 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 5296203?

Compensation: Loss of enjoyment due…: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent reduction 27.1.25…: $7,776.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5296203?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5296203?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12574985-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5296203 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 5296203?

Compensation: Loss of enjoyment due…: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent reduction 27.1.25…: $7,776.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5296203?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5296203?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12574985-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

50 Twyford Street, Bishopdale, Christchurch 8053 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5296203 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5296203 — net $15,303.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Rent reduction 27.1.25-13.10.25	$7,776.00	Rent reduction 27.1.25-13.10.25
Compensation: Loss of enjoyment due to landlord breaches	$3,000.00	Loss of enjoyment due to landlord breaches
Exemplary damages: Section 45 breaches	$3,000.00	Section 45 breaches
Exemplary damages: Section 60AA breach	$1,500.00	Section 60AA breach
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$15,303.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$15,303.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Trust Living Management Limited (formerly Trust Living Investment Limited) and Ying Shi must pay [The tenant/s] $15,303.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The landlord must arrange for the mains water to the sleepout to be cut by 5pm on Monday 20 October 2025.
From now until the end of the tenancy the rent will reduce to $360.00 per week, 50% of the rent charged under the tenancy agreement.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today. Mr Chen and Ms Sun represented the landlord. Background
This tenancy started on 27 January 2025. The premises comprise a 3-bedroom house and sleepout, advertised as a 4-bedroom property.
The tenant is a single mother with 3 children each of whom has special health needs.
The house is due to be demolished, and the site re-developed, in February 2026. Consents for that to happen have been issued by the local authority.
The tenant has continually raised issues with the landlord about the state of the premises.
The complaints mainly relate to water ingress into parts of the premises resulting in considerable black mould.
Concerned that her complaints to the landlord were not acted on, the tenant lodged her application on 27 June 2025.
I first heard the application on 16 September 2025. I set aside the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy, and I made a work order for the heat pumps to be assessed and repaired, with consequential orders for noncompliance.
I also issued a witness summons for the landlord’s Health Homes Standards (HHS) assessor Mr Jin to attend and give evidence since I could not reconcile his assessment report with the tenant’s photographic evidence.
The landlord did not meet the timeframe I set for the heat pump assessment but has paid the amount I ordered for noncompliance. The heat pump in the lounge was repaired on 6 October 2025 and is now working. The heat pump in the sleepout cannot be fixed, but the sleepout cannot now be used due to its state.
The tenancy agreement names Trust Living Investment Limited as the landlord. That company is now Trust Living Management Limited. The owners of the property are Ying Shi and Rong Zhang. Ying Shi is the sole director of Trust Living Management Limited. Mr Chen confirmed that he was authorised to represent both the landlord company and Ying Shi as one of the named owners of the property (and by definition also a landlord). I have amended the proceedings to reflect that. I have not included the other owner as Mr Chen did not confirm he was authorised to represent that person, and they were not a named or notified party. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS? •Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises is a reasonable state of repair? •Did the landlord unlawfully give notice to terminate the tenancy? •Has the tenant proved claims for exemplary damages? •Has the tenant proved claims for compensation? •Should the rent be reduced until the end of the tenancy? •Should the Tribunal make a further work order? Relevant law
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
Section 60AA RTA provides that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate a tenancy to a tenant knowing they are not entitled to give the notice. Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors 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 [2020] NZDC 17667
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. Discussion

Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS?

Mr Jin gave evidence about the HHS report he provided at the landlord’s request. He confirmed that the premises were not HHS compliant but noted that they were exempt because the landlord has obtained consent to demolish the house and redevelop the property within a period of 12 months from the date of the consent.
Mr Jin said he considered that the premises required maintenance work regardless of their HHS status because there was leaking into the dwelling that caused significant black mould to an extent that surprised him.
Mr Jin was an impressive witness. He gave evidence with professionalism and integrity.
I am satisfied that the premises were exempt from HHS compliance as allowed by law given their pending demolition for redevelopment, consent having been sought and granted. So there was no breach by the landlord. Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises is a reasonable state of repair?
Mr Chen gave evidence that the landlord had done some repairs but given the pending demolition of the premises it was limited in what it was prepared to do.
The tenant’s photographic and video evidence is damning. It shows the areas of leaking and significant black mould throughout the premises especially in some of the bedrooms and the bathroom.
The sleepout is so badly affected it is unusable and unliveable. The tenant’s 14- year-old son used to sleep there but cannot now because of the extent of the moisture and mould. Only 2 of the 4 bedrooms are useable due to the presence of black mould.
The tenant produced a report from the Christchurch City Council Environmental Health Team dated 13 October 2025. The bathroom, a bedroom and the kitchen/lounge were noted to have a strong smell and offensive mould odour with mould growth on the bedding. There is black mould on the walls. Due to dampness and mould the sleepout can no longer be used and poses a risk to health. The assessor recommends that the tenant find alternative housing as soon as possible.
Even allowing for the age of the premises and the period during which they are likely to remain available for residential purposes (section 45(1)(b) RTA considerations) the condition of these premises is woeful. A tenant with young children all of whom have health conditions should not be exposed to this level of harm. The distress caused to the tenant was very evident to see.
I find that the landlord failed to maintain and repair the premises by a considerable margin. When I asked Mr Chen at the first hearing whether the owner was prepared to consider a settlement with the tenant, he advised that the owner was not prepared to compromise. Today, he mentioned an offer of a 10% rent reduction for the term of the tenancy. Unsurprisingly, the tenant did not accept that.

Did the landlord unlawfully give notice to terminate the tenancy?

I my order dated 16 September 2025 I found that the landlord’s notice to terminate the fixed term tenancy was unlawful and I set it aside. Mr Chen accepts that now. He said it was due to him not understanding the law.

Has the tenant proved claims for exemplary damages?

A failure by a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is a defined unlawful act 2 . The Tribunal can award exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 for this breach.
Giving a notice to terminate a tenancy knowing they are not entitled is an unlawful act by a landlord 3 . The Tribunal can award exemplary damages up to $6,500.00 for this breach.
In both cases I find that the criteria for awarding exemplary damages are met. The landlord company is a professional landlord, and the owner is a director of that company. They are expected to know the law and to comply with it. 2 See section 45(1A) RTA 3 See section 60AA RTA
The landlord’s breaches affected the tenant to a great extent; they were completely against her interests; and they are against the public interest. Just because a house is scheduled for demolition does not relieve an owner of their statutory responsibilities. Of concern here too are the adverse effects the landlord’s breaches have had on the tenant’s children, well documented in the evidence.
For the failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair I award the tenant exemplary damages of $3,000.00. For the unlawful giving of the notice to terminate the tenancy I award the tenant exemplary damages of $1,500.00.

Has the tenant proved claims for compensation?

The tenant described in her evidence, both oral and documentary, how her enjoyment of the tenancy has been affected. She can only use 2 bedrooms; the sleepout and one bedroom are so badly affected by mould they are dangerous. The bathroom is in effect unusable. The children have to shower at school. The premises continue to be affected by leaking. Until recently, the heat pump has not operated properly.
The effects on the tenant have been such that she must be awarded compensation of a reasonable amount. Some losses, such as the loss of her son’s goods in the sleepout so badly affected by mould, cannot be properly quantified. She described feeling miserable, taken advantage of, not listened to, and not treated with dignity.
For this considerable loss of enjoyment that affected both the tenant and her children, I award her compensation of $3,000.00.
Separately, I award the tenant compensation based on a rent reduction during the tenancy up to now, and until the tenancy ends.
The deterioration of the premises has happened in stages, worsening over time. For the first 8 weeks I award compensation based on a 10% rent reduction ($576.00). For the next 8 weeks I award compensation based on a 20% rent reduction ($1,152.00). For the following 8 weeks I award compensation based on a 30% rent reduction ($1,728.00). For the 12-week period from the end of that period until last week (the tenant only paid 50% of her rent this week) I award compensation based on a 50% rent reduction ($4,320.00). The total award is $7,776.00.

Should the rent be reduced until the end of the tenancy?

Given the poor state of the premises and the fact that no further repair work will be done with the demolition date looming, I order that the rent be reduced by 50% to $360.00 per week from now until the end of the tenancy.

Should the Tribunal make a further work order?

The landlord agreed to have the main water supply to the sleepout turned off since it continues to leak into that room. I have made a work order for that to happen. Because the order is by consent, I need not make a consequential order for noncompliance 4 .
The tenant requested that I make an order for the provision of a temporary shower. I decline to make that order. The tenancy could end any day as the landlord has agreed to release her without any notice period.
I urge the landlord to reimburse the tenant for any expenses she incurs having to shower elsewhere. Otherwise, she may make a separate application for any costs incurred up to the end of the tenancy.
Other than that, the tenant was realistic about work orders noting that the tenancy ends in a few months’ time before the premises are demolished. Result
The landlord will pay the tenant $15,303.00 comprising compensation by way of a rent reduction of $7,776.00; compensation for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to dampness and significant mould and the loss of part of the use of the premises of $3,000.00; exemplary damages of $4,500.00 in total; and the filing fee.
The rent from this week to the end of the tenancy will reduce by 50% to $360.00 per week.
The landlord will ensure that the mains water to the sleepout is cut by 5pm on Monday 20 October 2025. Name suppression
The tenant sought, and is entitled to, a name suppression as her application is successful. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression 5 . 4 See section 78(2) RTA 5 See section 95A RTA

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5296203 — net $15,303.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Rent reduction 27.1.25-13.10.25	$7,776.00	Rent reduction 27.1.25-13.10.25
Compensation: Loss of enjoyment due to landlord breaches	$3,000.00	Loss of enjoyment due to landlord breaches
Exemplary damages: Section 45 breaches	$3,000.00	Section 45 breaches
Exemplary damages: Section 60AA breach	$1,500.00	Section 60AA breach
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$15,303.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$15,303.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Trust Living Management Limited (formerly Trust Living Investment Limited) and Ying Shi must pay [The tenant/s] $15,303.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The landlord must arrange for the mains water to the sleepout to be cut by 5pm on Monday 20 October 2025.
From now until the end of the tenancy the rent will reduce to $360.00 per week, 50% of the rent charged under the tenancy agreement.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today. Mr Chen and Ms Sun represented the landlord. Background
This tenancy started on 27 January 2025. The premises comprise a 3-bedroom house and sleepout, advertised as a 4-bedroom property.
The tenant is a single mother with 3 children each of whom has special health needs.
The house is due to be demolished, and the site re-developed, in February 2026. Consents for that to happen have been issued by the local authority.
The tenant has continually raised issues with the landlord about the state of the premises.
The complaints mainly relate to water ingress into parts of the premises resulting in considerable black mould.
Concerned that her complaints to the landlord were not acted on, the tenant lodged her application on 27 June 2025.
I first heard the application on 16 September 2025. I set aside the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy, and I made a work order for the heat pumps to be assessed and repaired, with consequential orders for noncompliance.
I also issued a witness summons for the landlord’s Health Homes Standards (HHS) assessor Mr Jin to attend and give evidence since I could not reconcile his assessment report with the tenant’s photographic evidence.
The landlord did not meet the timeframe I set for the heat pump assessment but has paid the amount I ordered for noncompliance. The heat pump in the lounge was repaired on 6 October 2025 and is now working. The heat pump in the sleepout cannot be fixed, but the sleepout cannot now be used due to its state.
The tenancy agreement names Trust Living Investment Limited as the landlord. That company is now Trust Living Management Limited. The owners of the property are Ying Shi and Rong Zhang. Ying Shi is the sole director of Trust Living Management Limited. Mr Chen confirmed that he was authorised to represent both the landlord company and Ying Shi as one of the named owners of the property (and by definition also a landlord). I have amended the proceedings to reflect that. I have not included the other owner as Mr Chen did not confirm he was authorised to represent that person, and they were not a named or notified party. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS? •Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises is a reasonable state of repair? •Did the landlord unlawfully give notice to terminate the tenancy? •Has the tenant proved claims for exemplary damages? •Has the tenant proved claims for compensation? •Should the rent be reduced until the end of the tenancy? •Should the Tribunal make a further work order? Relevant law
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
Section 60AA RTA provides that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate a tenancy to a tenant knowing they are not entitled to give the notice. Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors 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 [2020] NZDC 17667
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. Discussion

Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS?

Mr Jin gave evidence about the HHS report he provided at the landlord’s request. He confirmed that the premises were not HHS compliant but noted that they were exempt because the landlord has obtained consent to demolish the house and redevelop the property within a period of 12 months from the date of the consent.
Mr Jin said he considered that the premises required maintenance work regardless of their HHS status because there was leaking into the dwelling that caused significant black mould to an extent that surprised him.
Mr Jin was an impressive witness. He gave evidence with professionalism and integrity.
I am satisfied that the premises were exempt from HHS compliance as allowed by law given their pending demolition for redevelopment, consent having been sought and granted. So there was no breach by the landlord. Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises is a reasonable state of repair?
Mr Chen gave evidence that the landlord had done some repairs but given the pending demolition of the premises it was limited in what it was prepared to do.
The tenant’s photographic and video evidence is damning. It shows the areas of leaking and significant black mould throughout the premises especially in some of the bedrooms and the bathroom.
The sleepout is so badly affected it is unusable and unliveable. The tenant’s 14- year-old son used to sleep there but cannot now because of the extent of the moisture and mould. Only 2 of the 4 bedrooms are useable due to the presence of black mould.
The tenant produced a report from the Christchurch City Council Environmental Health Team dated 13 October 2025. The bathroom, a bedroom and the kitchen/lounge were noted to have a strong smell and offensive mould odour with mould growth on the bedding. There is black mould on the walls. Due to dampness and mould the sleepout can no longer be used and poses a risk to health. The assessor recommends that the tenant find alternative housing as soon as possible.
Even allowing for the age of the premises and the period during which they are likely to remain available for residential purposes (section 45(1)(b) RTA considerations) the condition of these premises is woeful. A tenant with young children all of whom have health conditions should not be exposed to this level of harm. The distress caused to the tenant was very evident to see.
I find that the landlord failed to maintain and repair the premises by a considerable margin. When I asked Mr Chen at the first hearing whether the owner was prepared to consider a settlement with the tenant, he advised that the owner was not prepared to compromise. Today, he mentioned an offer of a 10% rent reduction for the term of the tenancy. Unsurprisingly, the tenant did not accept that.

Did the landlord unlawfully give notice to terminate the tenancy?

I my order dated 16 September 2025 I found that the landlord’s notice to terminate the fixed term tenancy was unlawful and I set it aside. Mr Chen accepts that now. He said it was due to him not understanding the law.

Has the tenant proved claims for exemplary damages?

A failure by a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair is a defined unlawful act 2 . The Tribunal can award exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 for this breach.
Giving a notice to terminate a tenancy knowing they are not entitled is an unlawful act by a landlord 3 . The Tribunal can award exemplary damages up to $6,500.00 for this breach.
In both cases I find that the criteria for awarding exemplary damages are met. The landlord company is a professional landlord, and the owner is a director of that company. They are expected to know the law and to comply with it. 2 See section 45(1A) RTA 3 See section 60AA RTA
The landlord’s breaches affected the tenant to a great extent; they were completely against her interests; and they are against the public interest. Just because a house is scheduled for demolition does not relieve an owner of their statutory responsibilities. Of concern here too are the adverse effects the landlord’s breaches have had on the tenant’s children, well documented in the evidence.
For the failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair I award the tenant exemplary damages of $3,000.00. For the unlawful giving of the notice to terminate the tenancy I award the tenant exemplary damages of $1,500.00.

Has the tenant proved claims for compensation?

The tenant described in her evidence, both oral and documentary, how her enjoyment of the tenancy has been affected. She can only use 2 bedrooms; the sleepout and one bedroom are so badly affected by mould they are dangerous. The bathroom is in effect unusable. The children have to shower at school. The premises continue to be affected by leaking. Until recently, the heat pump has not operated properly.
The effects on the tenant have been such that she must be awarded compensation of a reasonable amount. Some losses, such as the loss of her son’s goods in the sleepout so badly affected by mould, cannot be properly quantified. She described feeling miserable, taken advantage of, not listened to, and not treated with dignity.
For this considerable loss of enjoyment that affected both the tenant and her children, I award her compensation of $3,000.00.
Separately, I award the tenant compensation based on a rent reduction during the tenancy up to now, and until the tenancy ends.
The deterioration of the premises has happened in stages, worsening over time. For the first 8 weeks I award compensation based on a 10% rent reduction ($576.00). For the next 8 weeks I award compensation based on a 20% rent reduction ($1,152.00). For the following 8 weeks I award compensation based on a 30% rent reduction ($1,728.00). For the 12-week period from the end of that period until last week (the tenant only paid 50% of her rent this week) I award compensation based on a 50% rent reduction ($4,320.00). The total award is $7,776.00.

Should the rent be reduced until the end of the tenancy?

Given the poor state of the premises and the fact that no further repair work will be done with the demolition date looming, I order that the rent be reduced by 50% to $360.00 per week from now until the end of the tenancy.

Should the Tribunal make a further work order?

The landlord agreed to have the main water supply to the sleepout turned off since it continues to leak into that room. I have made a work order for that to happen. Because the order is by consent, I need not make a consequential order for noncompliance 4 .
The tenant requested that I make an order for the provision of a temporary shower. I decline to make that order. The tenancy could end any day as the landlord has agreed to release her without any notice period.
I urge the landlord to reimburse the tenant for any expenses she incurs having to shower elsewhere. Otherwise, she may make a separate application for any costs incurred up to the end of the tenancy.
Other than that, the tenant was realistic about work orders noting that the tenancy ends in a few months’ time before the premises are demolished. Result
The landlord will pay the tenant $15,303.00 comprising compensation by way of a rent reduction of $7,776.00; compensation for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to dampness and significant mould and the loss of part of the use of the premises of $3,000.00; exemplary damages of $4,500.00 in total; and the filing fee.
The rent from this week to the end of the tenancy will reduce by 50% to $360.00 per week.
The landlord will ensure that the mains water to the sleepout is cut by 5pm on Monday 20 October 2025. Name suppression
The tenant sought, and is entitled to, a name suppression as her application is successful. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression 5 . 4 See section 78(2) RTA 5 See section 95A RTA

Tenancy Tribunal case 5296203 — Exemplary damages at 50 Twyford Street, Bishopdale, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5296203 — Exemplary damages at 50 Twyford Street, Bishopdale, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS?

Did the landlord unlawfully give notice to terminate the tenancy?

Has the tenant proved claims for exemplary damages?

Has the tenant proved claims for compensation?

Should the rent be reduced until the end of the tenancy?

Should the Tribunal make a further work order?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to comply with the HHS?

Did the landlord unlawfully give notice to terminate the tenancy?

Has the tenant proved claims for exemplary damages?

Has the tenant proved claims for compensation?

Should the rent be reduced until the end of the tenancy?

Should the Tribunal make a further work order?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions