What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5298741 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 5298741?

Compensation: $6,552.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5298741?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5298741?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12590848-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5298741 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 5298741?

Compensation: $6,552.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5298741?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5298741?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12590848-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 32B Ballarat Street, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5298741 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5298741 — net $10,180.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$6,552.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$3,600.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,180.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$10,180.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5298741 — net $10,180.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$6,552.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$3,600.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,180.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$10,180.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the applicant’s name and identifying details.
Auckland Property Management Limited Amy Any must pay [The tenant/s] $10,180.00 immediately as calculated in the table below:
This tenancy commenced on 16 June 2023 and concluded on 29 June 2025. The applicant has filed this application alleging that the respondent failed to maintain the premises as required under section 45(1)(b), of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant further alleges that the landlord breached their obligation to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards within 120 days of the commencement of the tenancy, as required for tenancies beginning on 16 June 2023. The alleged breaches relate to moisture, drainage, and ventilation issues at the property. The applicant seeks a rent reduction of 15 percent for the duration of the tenancy, which they calculate to be $6,552.00, and also seeks an award of exemplary damages.

What the Applicant Told Me?

The applicant told me that the property had several issues which she identified to the landlord at the commencement of the tenancy. The main issues were the presence of a crack above the ceiling in the shower and a crack on the ceiling above the kitchen. The kitchen was situated directly below the bathroom, and the home is a two-story property.
In relation to the crack above the shower, she told me that it was indicative of a general lack of maintenance and that it was disconcerting because of the mould issues. The presence of the crack indicated a general lack of maintenance, and she believed it may have been a contributing factor to mould and weather tightness issues.
In relation to the crack beneath the shower and above the kitchen, she stated that between September and October 2023 there was an actual leak in this area, which she considered a discrete issue in itself, but that the presence of the crack before and after the leak indicated ongoing leakage in that part of the property. She stated that the landlord did not take any action. Instead, when she raised concerns about the state of the property, she would receive generic responses. She explained that she was grateful to have found a property and did not want to cause any issues with the landlord, so she phrased her requests in a polite and non-assuming tone.
This is supported by emails provided by the applicant. After moving in, she sent photographs showing that the house was not clean, including one showing the entrance covered in dirt and dust. She also sent an email saying, “I hope this email finds you well. I have moved into the property and so far I love it, just a few things to bring to your attention. The outside of the house was in a terrible state with cobwebs completely covering the front door. I have since water blasted and fixed the front gate, it looks much better. Your receptionist gave me the inspection form so I will complete and return it, and I am not sure if you are aware but above the shower there is a large crack in the ceiling and it looks like it could break through sooner rather than later. I want to bring this to your attention”.
The applicant provided an email from the property manager acknowledging receipt of that email. The property manager said she had inspected the property and found it clean and tidy except for a stain on the carpet. She confirmed there was damage to the wall in the bathroom and that the ceiling was cracked above the shower, and asked whether there was any other damage. It does not appear that any further action was taken after this email.
In September, an additional issue occurred where a leak developed in the kitchen beneath the bathroom on the second storey. The tenant said she placed a bucket to collect water and emptied it daily. The landlord acknowledged the issue but did not respond for a couple of weeks. The tenant followed up several times. The landlord said she needed to wait to speak with the owner, and the leak was not rectified until approximately 5 or 6 October. The applicant told me that this was not reasonable given the nature of the issue and that it should have been fixed immediately. She also said that this was reflective of the landlord’s general approach to maintenance responsibilities.
In support of this, she provided numerous emails and text messages showing follow-ups where the landlord acknowledged the issues but took no substantive action. In some instances, the owner told her to continue collecting the leaking water with a bucket.
The applicant also provided emails and other correspondence where she raised Healthy Homes compliance concerns, citing gaps, mould, and poor ventilation. The property manager replied that the property did not need to comply until 1 July 2025 and that she could not take further steps because the owner was overseas. The tenant has provided photos showing the presence of mould in the property and stated that she was concerned for her and her son’s health and well-being.

What the Respondent Told Me?

The respondent provided a Healthy Homes assessment showing that the property was non-compliant with drainage, draft stopping, and heating standards. She said that these matters were rectified before the tenancy commenced and provided invoices for a heat pump installation and a window repair. When asked, she did not provide any Healthy Homes report showing that the property was compliant after those works were completed. She said she believed that the invoices demonstrating some work had been done were sufficient.
The respondent stated that the cracks referred to by the applicant were cosmetic. She disputed the applicant’s claim that one of the windows did not close properly. Regarding the leak that occurred in September 2023, she said she emailed the owner who initially did not respond and then delayed further because the owner wanted to contact the original installer to see if they could repair the leak under warranty, and therefore she could take no further action. She referred to this repeatedly during the hearing as the reason she could not intervene.
She also acknowledged that despite the tenant’s numerous maintenance requests, she did not visit the property outside of scheduled routine inspections and did not meet the tenant during the tenancy.
The respondent did not dispute the presence of mould in the property but attributed it to the failures of the tenant to ventilate and airdry her clothes inside.

What Issues Must I Determine?

The issues I must determine are: a) Whether the landlord was in breach of their obligations under section 45, subsection 1, paragraph b of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. b) Whether the landlord was in breach of their obligation under section 45, subsection 1, paragraph b a to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards, and c) Whether, if the breaches are established, compensation and or exemplary damages should be awarded. Was the Landlord Was in Breach of Their Obligation to Provide and Maintain the Premises in a Reasonable State of Repair?
The landlord's obligations for maintenance are outlined in section 45(1)(b), of the Act, that they are to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. This means that at the commencement of the tenancy, the property must be in a reasonable condition and that if during the tenancy that condition changes and the landlord is notified by the tenant of issues, the landlord must take reasonable steps to rectify them. For an owner that is outside the country, section 16a requires them to appoint an agent to manage the property on their behalf and in their absence.
During the hearing, the tenant provided evidence that she raised concerns about the mould in the property, whether the house was Healthy Homes compliant, and issues with damage to several parts. The landlord, while sending emails acknowledging receipt of the communications, was not responsive to the issues. She confirmed to me that she never visited the property outside her scheduled routine inspections, which she said occurred approximately every two months.
When notified of an issue at the property, the landlord is required to take reasonable steps to rectify it. This means that ultimately it is a question of context as to what the issue is and whether the intervention was suitable. What is evident is that the property manager did not engage properly with the issues. She saw a clothes hanger in the property during one of her routine inspections and attributed all the mould issues to the presence of this clothes hanger and the fact that the windows were closed without investigating and making an informed decision about whether the respondents claims had any basis.
The applicant told me that when she was outside the property at work, she would keep the windows closed for security

Reasons

and that they were open for

reasonable periods during the day when she was home. She explained that the photo the landlord referred to was taken when the clothes were dry and had been brought inside before leaving, and that the landlord continued to use this as a reason to absolve themselves of responsibility for the moisture and mould.

The standard of proof that I must apply is the civil standard, which means the applicant must establish their claims on the balance of probability. That is, more likely than not. I do not need to be certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain, and if I am more than 50 percent satisfied of the claim, then it is established.
The numerous emails indicate to me a general apathy on the part of the property manager and that even in the presence of an actual leak, no steps were taken for several weeks before the issue was rectified, when it reasonably should have been dealt with urgently. I am satisfied that the landlord did not take reasonable steps to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair for the duration of the tenancy. Was the Landlord Was in Breach of Their Obligation Comply with the Healthy

Homes Standards?

The burden of proof that the applicant has to meet is the balance of probabilities as outlined above, that I must be satisfied that it is more likely than not that the landlord was in breach of their obligations. The Healthy Homes report that the respondent has provided confirms that there were moisture, drainage, ventilation, and heating issues at the property. The respondent provided some invoices showing that some work was done, but did not provide any updated report showing that the house was compliant.
One of the issues the tenant raised was the inability to close the bathroom window. The tenant provided a photo showing that the window was always one centimetre open. The respondent provided a distant photo of the same window which they said showed it closed. The applicant said that the respondents photo confirmed that the window could not close. The photo, because of its distance and angle, does not confirm either position, but I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there continued to be a draught stopping issue that was not rectified.
I am also satisfied that the presence of mould, cracks in the bathroom and kitchen, and the 2023 leak indicate, on the balance of probabilities, that there were ventilation and moisture issues at the property. The ongoing mould, lack of evidence of maintenance engagement, and absence of proof of compliance support the conclusion that the house was not Healthy Homes compliant and had issues with mould and dampness.
The landlord also responded to one of the tenant’s requests for information by stating that the house did not need to be Healthy Homes compliant until 1 July 2025, which is incorrect. The property was required to be compliant within 120 days of the commencement of the tenancy on 16 June 2023.
The landlord’s text message attempting to absolve responsibility until 1 July 2025 supports the conclusion that the non-compliance was intentional. When I asked the applicant about this message, she said she received many messages and was not aware of who sent that one, responding generally. Being a professional property manager, the landlord should have been aware that compliance dates vary depending on when a tenancy commenced, and it was highly irresponsible to respond to a potential health and safety matter in this casual and misleading manner. The landlord's suggestion that mould was caused by the tenant's drying rack is unsupported and implausible given the broader evidence that has been traversed above. Towards the end of the tenancy, when the tenant raised the issue of compensation and the landlord sensed some potential liability, they took steps to engage a mould remediation company and rectify the issue, which indicates to me that they were motivated by risk rather than compliance. I am therefore satisfied that the landlord was in breach of their obligations to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. Having Found Breaches of Their Obligations in Regards to Maintenance and Compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards, Is Compensation and

Exemplary Damages Justified?

a) Compensation

The tribunal can order a reduction of rent as compensation where a tenant has not received the full benefit of the tenancy due to the landlord's breach. As articulated in Tenant v Kainga Ora, [NZTT 4821977], and Tenant v Kainga Ora, [NZTT 4291558], I am satisfied that for the duration of this tenancy, while the tenant paid rent in full, she did not have full enjoyment or utility of the property due to the landlord's breach. A 15% reduction is reasonable. The tenant has calculated this as $6,552.00. This amount is awarded. b) Exemplary Damages
In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] 1 NZLR 732, Cooke P described exemplary damages as exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others and punitive because they are meant to punish, likening them to a fine though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of the conduct. The Residential Tenancies Act designates certain breaches as unlawful acts for which exemplary damages may be awarded, reflecting the policy intent to uphold minimum standards in the rental market.
As outlined above, the landlord failed in their obligations under section 45 of the Act to maintain the property to a reasonable standard. Where a professional property manager fails to carry out inspections or to take reasonable steps to understand and rectify issues reported by a tenant, such omission can properly be characterised as intentional.
The evidence shows a complete apathy on the part of the property manager, repeatedly deflecting responsibility to the owner overseas. Over the two-year tenancy, no visits were made to address or understand the issues, and no steps were taken during routine inspections to investigate the concerns raised.
I therefore find the landlord to have been in breach of section 45, and that this breach constitutes an unlawful act. Under Schedule 1A, the maximum exemplary damages available for this unlawful act are $7,200.00. Given the seriousness and persistence of the breach, I consider an award of 50% of the maximum, being $3,600.00 dollars, to be appropriate. Suppression and the filing fee:
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and granted her application for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5298741 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 32B Ballarat Street, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5298741 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 32B Ballarat Street, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

What the Applicant Told Me?

What the Respondent Told Me?

What Issues Must I Determine?

Reasons

Homes Standards?

Exemplary Damages Justified?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

What the Applicant Told Me?

What the Respondent Told Me?

What Issues Must I Determine?

Reasons

Homes Standards?

Exemplary Damages Justified?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions