What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300195 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 5300195?

Compensation: - Breach Of HHS: $1,170.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: - HHS Report: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300195?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300195?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12332167-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300195 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 5300195?

Compensation: - Breach Of HHS: $1,170.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: - HHS Report: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300195?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300195?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12332167-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

30H Harris Street, Te Puke, Te Puke 3119 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5300195 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

30H Harris Street, Te Puke, Te Puke 3119 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5300195 — Exemplary damages | 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 5300195 — net $3,973.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: - breach of HHS	$1,170.00	- breach of HHS
Exemplary damages: - breach of s 45 RTA	$2,400.00	- breach of s 45 RTA
Compensation: - HHS report	$375.00	- HHS report
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,973.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,973.00

Claims and awards for application 5300195 — net $3,973.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: - breach of HHS

Amount: $1,170.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: - breach of HHS

Exemplary damages: - breach of s 45 RTA

Amount: $2,400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: - breach of s 45 RTA

Compensation: - HHS report

Amount: $375.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: - HHS report

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $3,973.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $3,973.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation 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.
Kenneth John Hansen must pay [The tenant/s] $3,973.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held in Tauranga.
The tenant’s claims are as follows: a. the premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes standards. b. The premises did not comply with smoke alarm regulations. c. The landlord has served her with a retaliatory termination notice. d. The landlord has breached his obligations in respect of his right of entry. No monetary order was sought in relation to this claim.
The tenant seeks exemplary damages and compensation. The landlord challenges all of the claims.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. a. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. b. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. c. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , 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 or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

RETALIATORY NOTICE

Section 54 of the RTA relates to retaliatory notices. It states: 54Tribunal may declare notice retaliatory (1)This section applies in relation to a notice given by a landlord terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U). (2)The tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice was retaliatory on either or both of the following grounds: (a)that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy: (b)that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or performance, or proposed exercise or performance, by the chief executive or any other person of any power or function conferred on the person under this or any other Act in respect of the tenancy or premises. (3)If the tenant makes the application within 28 working days after receiving the termination notice, the tenant may at the same time apply for an order declaring the notice to be of no effect. (4)If the Tribunal is satisfied that either or both of the grounds in subsection (2) apply, the Tribunal must declare the notice to be retaliatory and, if an order is applied for under subsection (3), of no effect. (5)However, the Tribunal need not declare the notice to be retaliatory and of no effect if the Tribunal is satisfied that, in the case of subsection (2)(a), the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority, or remedy, or the making by the tenant of any such complaint, was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice. (6)The giving of a notice terminating a tenancy is an unlawful act if the notice is declared under subsection (4) to be retaliatory.
The essential element of a retaliatory notice is the issuing of it in response to a tenant asserting a right or making a complaint, but it need not be the sole motivation, provided the landlord was partially motivated by the tenant asserting the right or making a complaint.
The Tribunal in Easton v Marks 2 considered the meaning of the verb “motivate”. It considered the Webster’s dictionary definition “to furnish with a motive or motives; to give impetus to; to insight; to impel” and held that the 2 Easton v Marks Auckland TT 229/87, 27 May 1987 landlord was not incited or impelled by the tenant’s actions. The Tribunal in that case noted that: “It is one thing to say that an owner of a property has grown somewhat tired of his property being tenanted to persons, it is another thing to say that the tenants gave impetus to, or incited, or impelled the owner to give the notice to quit.”
There are four issues to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA? b. If so, was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? c. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? d. If so, was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?
Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA? a. The landlord sent an email to the tenant on 19 June 2025 indicating he wanted to move back into the property and a further, formal termination notice was sent to the tenant on 12 July 2025. The tenant says both notices are retaliatory. b. For the purposes of section 54 (1) of the RTA I find that the 12 July 2025 termination notice complies with the technical requirements of section 51.
Was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? a. The tenant has applied to set aside the termination notice within 28 days of receiving the termination notice, accordingly there is jurisdiction to declare the notice of no effect if it is declared retaliatory, however the tenant subsequently gave notice to terminate the tenancy therefore there is no practical purpose of setting aside the notice if I find it was retaliatory.
Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? a. The tenant says that she has raised concerns about the tenancy on a number of occasions but in particularly she formally raised her concerns by way of a 14-day notice served on the landlord on 27 August 2024. In addition, by way of her application to the Tribunal (filed on 2 July 2025) the tenant has complained about aspects of the tenancy. b. Given the very short time between the tenant’s application to the Tribunal and the termination notice being issued there is an inference that the landlord is at least partly motivated by the tenant’s complaint. This then puts an evidential onus on the landlord to show that he was not motivated, even in part, by the tenant exercising her right to make a complaint 3 . c. The landlord says the notice was issued because he intended to and has now moved into the property. d. Both parties provided an email dated 19 June 2025 in which the landlord says he had mentioned to the tenant his desire to move back into the premises in early September 2025 and was giving her an idea of time frame. The tenant filed her application to the Tribunal on 3 July 2025. The landlord then sent a termination notice on 12 July 2025. e. The landlord provided oral and written evidence about his own financial and living circumstances and he said that he had recently turned 65, which meant he was now receiving a pension and was able to leave the home he was boarding in and move into his own home (the tenancy premises). 3 McIntyre v Just Junction 2017 NZTT 4067876. f. I am not satisfied it is likely that in giving the notice (to use the words of section 54) the landlord was at least partly motivated by the exercise of a right, power, authority or remedy that the tenant had in relation to the tenancy, or a complaint by the tenant in relation to the tenancy. g. I am confident in concluding that the landlord’s decision to issue the termination notice was wholly because he wanted to move into the property himself as he has done. The landlord advised the tenant of his intention to terminate the tenancy nearly a year after being served with the 14-day notice and prior to her filing an application in the Tribunal. h. A notice of termination given for only genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory. 4 I find the landlord’s reasons for giving the termination were genuine and fair.
Was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious? a. I do not need to consider this issue as I have found the tenant has not proven the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord.
I find that the termination notice is not retaliatory and dismiss this claim.

HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS

The tenant claim’s that the landlord has breached his obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards. The RTA requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). 5 The HHS provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage. 4 Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA244/88, 3 November 1988 See Section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA 5
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025.
There are two relevant documents filed in relation to this claim: a. The Healthy Homes Standards – current level of compliance (HHS compliance statement) - which was provided with the tenancy agreement dated 28 May 2023. b. Healthy Homes – Current level of Compliance report dated 1 July 2025 commissioned by the tenant and completed by “The House Inspector Ltd”. (HHS report). Helpfully the report writer was able to be phoned and answer some questions during the hearing to clarify any questions or disputes the landlord had about the report.
For completeness I will comment on all HHS for this premises. Heating standard
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. The exemptions do not apply to this tenancy.
The HHS compliance statement says: a. The required heating capacity for the main living room of the rental property was 3.4 KW. b. The type of qualifying heater installed in the main living room heating capacity is a Heat Pump 4 kw.
The HHS report says the current heat pump meets the HHS standard.
I find that property was compliant with the HHS heating standard. Insulation standard
The Insulation standard requires that the premises have qualifying insulation in the ceiling cavity, and under the floor if the floor is a suspended floor. To be considered ‘qualifying insulation’ the insulation must meet a minimum R value. The insulation must also be in a reasonable condition.
The HHS does provide an exemption to the required for insulation in specific circumstances for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
The HHS compliance statement says: a. Ceiling insulation i. The entire premises has ceiling insulation. ii. The R-value is unknown. iii. The thickness is 200mm. iv. The date of insulation was unknown. v. The insulation was last inspected in 2022. b. Underfloor insulation i. The entire premises has underfloor insulation. ii. The insulation is polystyrene. iii. The insulation was installed in 2019. iv. The insulation was last inspected in 2022.
The HHS report says: a. The floor insulation is in poor condition and does not meet the HHS. b. The ceiling insulation is in poor condition and some areas are uninsulated, the R-value is unknown as no label is visible. c. The current floor and ceiling insulation does not meet the HHS.
The landlord accepted that the property was not fully insulated and did not meet the HHS, however he said it did have some underfloor insulation. Ventilation standard
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. The exemptions do not apply to this tenancy.
The HHS compliance statement says: a. All habitable rooms in the property have one or more windows, doors or skylights that open to the outside and meet the HHS standards. b. Each room with an indoor cooktop, bath or shower have an extractor fan. i. Specifically, the bathroom and lounge adjoining to the kitchen have 150 mm ducting and fans.
The HHS report says: a. The kitchen, three bedrooms and bathroom have windows. b. The kitchen is not equipped with a compliant extractor fan or rangehood that is vented to the outside. The current ventilation method (e.g., a standard fan, recirculating rangehood, or no extraction) does not meet the Healthy Homes Standards. In particular the small ducting ceiling fan does not appear to be functioning. c. The bathroom fan has little to no draw.
The HHS report writer explained that he used a piece of toilet paper and held it to the bathroom extractor fan which evidenced little draw.
The landlord explained the practical difficulty in installing a compliant extractor fan or rangehood in the kitchen, given the placement of the oven. However, he did accept that the ceiling fan was not working in any event.
Accordingly, I find the property failed to meet the HHS in respect of the ventilation standard. Draught Stopping Standard
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. The exemptions do not apply to this tenancy.
The HHS compliance statement says: a. The property does not have any open fireplaces. b. I have not been provided with the page of the HHS compliance statement that answers whether the property was free from any unintentional or unreasonable gaps or holes that allow noticeable draughts in or out of the building.
The HHS report says: a. The property is not free from unintentional and unreasonable gaps. b. It reported a section of rotten floor and damaged floor covering was found, resulting in a visible gap in the flooring. Photographs were provided to show the gap. a. It confirms there are no open fireplaces.
The landlord suggested that the tenant may have intentionally caused the hole in the kitchen floor. This was disputed by the tenant, and I consider this unlikely given the landlord accepted that there were a number of areas of the floor that were softening and it appeared it was not made of particularly robust material. I understand the hole in the kitchen floor occurred in May 2025, therefore this particular breach has only arisen very recently.
Accordingly, I find the property did not meet the HHS in respect of the draught stopping standard. Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains.
The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. The exemptions do not apply to this tenancy.
The HHS compliance statement says: a. The property has gutters and downpipes that efficiently drain storm water, surface water, and ground water to an appropriate outfall. b. The property does not have any enclosed subfloor spaces.
The HHS report says: a. the property appears to have insufficient water diversion in one or more areas. b. There were corroded gutters observed on the property. Photographs were provided. c. There are cracked weatherboards, holes, and missing or loose weatherboard joints/soakers were noted in several areas of the exterior cladding – the impact of which may allow moisture ingress. d. A photograph of a downpipe shows is it is rotten and cracked.
The landlord said he had plumbing work undertaken in respect of a drainage issue and the contractor did not identify any other issues with the spouting, therefore he was unaware of an issue. However, the photographs of the guttering and downpipes show severe corrosion. I consider that the property was not compliant with the moisture ingress and drainage standard and given the extent of the corrosion, this appears likely to have been an issue for the duration of the tenancy. Outcome – breach of HHS
I find the landlord has not ensured the property is compliant with the HHS standards and has committed an unlawful act. The tenant seeks exemplary damages in respect of the HHS breach, which I will address later in this decision. Compensation in respect of HHS
The tenant seeks compensation from the landlord in respect of the HHS claim.
The tenant seeks compensation as follows: a. Increased power bills from poor insulation - $1000 b. Health impact from breach - $2,000 c. Prolonged stress and hardship - $1,500 d. Rent refund for substandard conditions - $18,870-19,870.
The landlord disputed that the property was particularly cold and he was not finding it damp and had not had an issue with condensation since he moved back into the property. He also said that the tenant’s power usage (as evidenced in graphs she had submitted) was not unusually high.
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 under the RTA. 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 6 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; 6 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
One aspect of the tenant’s claim for compensation is the stress she has experienced for the landlord’s breaches.
The Tribunal has the authority to award damages for stress and inconvenience. 7 Nevertheless, it is not something that the Tribunal does lightly. The normal rules for damages apply and the tenant must prove a breach of an obligation or right, damage, that the damage was foreseeable and that an amount of damages is appropriate.
I consider it would be foreseeable that the tenant would suffer stress and hardship in the circumstances. Stress is intangible loss, making it difficult to value. Nice Place Property v Ogbourne and Couzens 8 provided bands to apply when making awards for emotional harm. Those amounts have been increased in the 2022 Tribunal case A v Singh 9 to take into account inflation: a. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $1,000.00. b.Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00. c. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 and upwards.
In this case, I consider the following factors are relevant: a. I consider the tenant is entitled to compensation for the breach of the landlord’s obligation to comply with the HHS to reflect the impact the breach would have had on her. 7 See section 77 (2) (n) of the RTA. 8 Nice Place Property v Ogbourne and Couzens (2017) NZTT 4046775 9 A v Singh [2022] NZTT Auckland 4315225 b. The tenants stress would be at lower end of the scale. I consider that had her stress been at the middle or upper end of the scale she would have filed an application shortly after she served her 14 -day notice in late 2024. c. The tenant did not get the benefit of a healthy home, which would in turn impact the tenant’s health and power costs, over the length of the tenancy, but particularly in winter. d. I consider $10.00 per week of the tenancy (117 weeks (16 May 2023 – 10 August 2025) would be reasonable in the circumstances.
Accordingly, I make an order for compensation of $1,170

SMOKE ALARMS

Under section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA, a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A. The relevant regulations are the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 (“SAI Regulations”)
The SAI Regulations set out the following requirements: -Landlords must ensure qualifying smoke alarms are installed and operational. -Smoke alarms must be installed in every sleeping space, or within 3 metres of the entrance to the sleeping space, and in each level of a multi-level dwelling. -All new smoke alarms must be photoelectric, have a battery life of at least eight years or be hard-wired, be installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions, meet international standards, be in full working order, and have their expiry date displayed. -Existing smoke alarms do not need to be replaced if they are in full working order and have not passed their expiry date.
The tenant’s evidence is that no smoke alarms were installed in the premises.
The landlord says that there was smoke alarm situated within 3 metres of the bedrooms. The landlord says on taking possession of the premises he located the smoke alarm in a draw.
The landlord was unable to provide a pre-tenancy inspection report (usually included as part of the standard form tenancy agreement template on the Tenancy Services website – and used in this case) to confirm that the smoke alarm was installed at the commencement of the tenancy.
In the absence of this information consider it unlikely that the landlord had ensured compliant smoke alarms were installed at the commencement of this tenancy. It seems to me more likely that the smoke alarm was installed during the previous tenancy (in which the tenant’s mother was the tenant and the tenant also occupied the property) and not checked when the new tenancy began.
I accordingly find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 10 the Court of Appeal said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.”
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. Before 10 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732(Cooke P) the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the following factors found in section 109 of the RTA: 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 the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed, d.the public interest, e.whether it is just to make the award.
Intention is proved where the party turns their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately sets out to commit the act. It is unnecessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully, it is enough that they intended to commit the act which is in fact unlawful. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the particular obligation they have failed to perform, confusion, lack of knowledge or ignorance of the law is no defence. A party is deemed to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional. Also, if the party is wilfully blind to the factual circumstances that give rise to an unlawful act, this may also be sufficient to prove they acted intentionally.
Failing to comply with the HHS and the obligation in respect of smoke alarms are deemed to be unlawful acts, for which exemplary damages can be ordered. 11 .
I must consider the relevant factors set out in section 109 of the RTA with respect to the HHS. a. The landlord was aware of his HHS obligations and said he did his best to comply within his own financial constraints. 11 See section 45 (1)(bb) of the RTA, b. The effect the noncompliance was that the tenant lived in an unhealthy home. The tenant said the premises was damp, cold and had mould growth. She said her children were often unwell with respiratory illness. c. It is in the tenant’s interest to receive exemplary damages for the unlawful act committed against her. d. There is a public interest in ensuring landlords comply with the HHS. e. It is just to award exemplary damages in the circumstances of this breach.
In terms of the relevant factors set out in section 109 of the RTA in respect to the smoke alarms breach I note: a. The landlord believed the property has compliant smoke alarms. I consider this breach careless as he was aware of his obligation and believed the property was compliant. b. There was no direct impact on, or harm caused to the tenant and no evidence of the tenant having raised with the landlord a concern about the absence of smoke alarms. She said she was unaware of the obligation in respect of smoke alarms until it was raised in the HHS report. c. It is however a fundamental breach of the landlord’s obligations, which exposed the tenant to risk for the period she was living in the premises. d. The public interest requires that landlords be encouraged to take such important safety responsibilities more seriously. e. There is a public interest in the Tribunal penalising non-compliance with the SAI Regulations
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered is $7,200.00. 12
The Tribunal must take a global approach to exemplary damages meaning one order to a single maximum irrespective of the number of breaches of a section. 13 The order made below is made on a global basis taking into account all of the landlords’ breaches of s 45 of the RTA,
The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 14
Having regards to the above factors I consider an award of exemplary damages of a third of the maximum is appropriate and make an order of exemplary damages of $2,400.00. This award does not reflect the smoke alarm breach given that breach appears to have been careless but not intentional. REIMBURSEMENT OF THE HHS INSPECTION INVOICE - $375
The tenant obtained her own Healthy Homes inspection report which has supported her claim that the premises was not compliant with the HHS. The tenant should be compensated for the cost of obtaining this report, Accordingly, I make an order of compensation for the HHS assessment invoice of $375.

RIGHT OF ENTRY

The tenant says that on 11 July 2025 at approximately 11am, she received a text message from a contractor, who informed me that the landlord had passed on her details so he could arrange access to inspect the garage for electrical work, which he wanted to do that day. She says she agreed to the visit and coordinated respectfully with the contractor to allow access but had to rearrange her schedule to accommodate it. 12 See Schedule 1A of the RTA. See section 45 (1A) of the RTA. 13 See MBIE v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583. 14 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781.
Section 48 (2) (d) of the RTA provides a landlord (which includes their contractor) may enter the premises during the tenancy for the purpose of carrying out necessary repairs to or necessary maintenance of, the premises, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry.
I find the landlord did not give the required notice pursuant to s 48 of the RTA. However, the tenant did not seek any order in relation to this issue therefore I make no further comment or orders in respect of this claim.

FILING FEE

As the tenant has had some success with her claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27.

SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 15
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. 16
The tenant has not had substantial success with her claim, in terms of quantum she was seeking, but has had substantial success with respect to the issues and I do not consider there is a public interest in publication of her name. Accordingly, I grant the tenant name suppression. 15 See Section 95 A (1) of the RTA. 16 See section 95 A (4) of the RTA.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

PROCEDRAL NOTE

The landlord initially indicated he might file a cross-application. I indicated to the landlord that if that was the case I would hear the tenants claim today and adjourn the matter for his claim to be filed. The landlord then indicated he would not file a cross-application and wanted the matter to be finally determined. The landlord is free to file an application in relation to this tenancy if he wishes, which will be considered on its merits.

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 5300195 — net $3,973.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: - breach of HHS	$1,170.00	- breach of HHS
Exemplary damages: - breach of s 45 RTA	$2,400.00	- breach of s 45 RTA
Compensation: - HHS report	$375.00	- HHS report
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,973.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,973.00

Claims and awards for application 5300195 — net $3,973.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: - breach of HHS

Amount: $1,170.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: - breach of HHS

Exemplary damages: - breach of s 45 RTA

Amount: $2,400.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: - breach of s 45 RTA

Compensation: - HHS report

Amount: $375.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: - HHS report

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $3,973.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $3,973.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation 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.
Kenneth John Hansen must pay [The tenant/s] $3,973.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held in Tauranga.
The tenant’s claims are as follows: a. the premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes standards. b. The premises did not comply with smoke alarm regulations. c. The landlord has served her with a retaliatory termination notice. d. The landlord has breached his obligations in respect of his right of entry. No monetary order was sought in relation to this claim.
The tenant seeks exemplary damages and compensation. The landlord challenges all of the claims.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. a. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. b. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. c. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , 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 or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

RETALIATORY NOTICE

Section 54 of the RTA relates to retaliatory notices. It states: 54Tribunal may declare notice retaliatory (1)This section applies in relation to a notice given by a landlord terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U). (2)The tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice was retaliatory on either or both of the following grounds: (a)that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy: (b)that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or performance, or proposed exercise or performance, by the chief executive or any other person of any power or function conferred on the person under this or any other Act in respect of the tenancy or premises. (3)If the tenant makes the application within 28 working days after receiving the termination notice, the tenant may at the same time apply for an order declaring the notice to be of no effect. (4)If the Tribunal is satisfied that either or both of the grounds in subsection (2) apply, the Tribunal must declare the notice to be retaliatory and, if an order is applied for under subsection (3), of no effect. (5)However, the Tribunal need not declare the notice to be retaliatory and of no effect if the Tribunal is satisfied that, in the case of subsection (2)(a), the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority, or remedy, or the making by the tenant of any such complaint, was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice. (6)The giving of a notice terminating a tenancy is an unlawful act if the notice is declared under subsection (4) to be retaliatory.
The essential element of a retaliatory notice is the issuing of it in response to a tenant asserting a right or making a complaint, but it need not be the sole motivation, provided the landlord was partially motivated by the tenant asserting the right or making a complaint.
The Tribunal in Easton v Marks 2 considered the meaning of the verb “motivate”. It considered the Webster’s dictionary definition “to furnish with a motive or motives; to give impetus to; to insight; to impel” and held that the 2 Easton v Marks Auckland TT 229/87, 27 May 1987 landlord was not incited or impelled by the tenant’s actions. The Tribunal in that case noted that: “It is one thing to say that an owner of a property has grown somewhat tired of his property being tenanted to persons, it is another thing to say that the tenants gave impetus to, or incited, or impelled the owner to give the notice to quit.”
There are four issues to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA? b. If so, was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? c. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? d. If so, was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?
Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA? a. The landlord sent an email to the tenant on 19 June 2025 indicating he wanted to move back into the property and a further, formal termination notice was sent to the tenant on 12 July 2025. The tenant says both notices are retaliatory. b. For the purposes of section 54 (1) of the RTA I find that the 12 July 2025 termination notice complies with the technical requirements of section 51.
Was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? a. The tenant has applied to set aside the termination notice within 28 days of receiving the termination notice, accordingly there is jurisdiction to declare the notice of no effect if it is declared retaliatory, however the tenant subsequently gave notice to terminate the tenancy therefore there is no practical purpose of setting aside the notice if I find it was retaliatory.
Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? a. The tenant says that she has raised concerns about the tenancy on a number of occasions but in particularly she formally raised her concerns by way of a 14-day notice served on the landlord on 27 August 2024. In addition, by way of her application to the Tribunal (filed on 2 July 2025) the tenant has complained about aspects of the tenancy. b. Given the very short time between the tenant’s application to the Tribunal and the termination notice being issued there is an inference that the landlord is at least partly motivated by the tenant’s complaint. This then puts an evidential onus on the landlord to show that he was not motivated, even in part, by the tenant exercising her right to make a complaint 3 . c. The landlord says the notice was issued because he intended to and has now moved into the property. d. Both parties provided an email dated 19 June 2025 in which the landlord says he had mentioned to the tenant his desire to move back into the premises in early September 2025 and was giving her an idea of time frame. The tenant filed her application to the Tribunal on 3 July 2025. The landlord then sent a termination notice on 12 July 2025. e. The landlord provided oral and written evidence about his own financial and living circumstances and he said that he had recently turned 65, which meant he was now receiving a pension and was able to leave the home he was boarding in and move into his own home (the tenancy premises). 3 McIntyre v Just Junction 2017 NZTT 4067876. f. I am not satisfied it is likely that in giving the notice (to use the words of section 54) the landlord was at least partly motivated by the exercise of a right, power, authority or remedy that the tenant had in relation to the tenancy, or a complaint by the tenant in relation to the tenancy. g. I am confident in concluding that the landlord’s decision to issue the termination notice was wholly because he wanted to move into the property himself as he has done. The landlord advised the tenant of his intention to terminate the tenancy nearly a year after being served with the 14-day notice and prior to her filing an application in the Tribunal. h. A notice of termination given for only genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory. 4 I find the landlord’s reasons for giving the termination were genuine and fair.
Was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious? a. I do not need to consider this issue as I have found the tenant has not proven the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord.
I find that the termination notice is not retaliatory and dismiss this claim.

HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS

The tenant claim’s that the landlord has breached his obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards. The RTA requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). 5 The HHS provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage. 4 Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA244/88, 3 November 1988 See Section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA 5
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025.
There are two relevant documents filed in relation to this claim: a. The Healthy Homes Standards – current level of compliance (HHS compliance statement) - which was provided with the tenancy agreement dated 28 May 2023. b. Healthy Homes – Current level of Compliance report dated 1 July 2025 commissioned by the tenant and completed by “The House Inspector Ltd”. (HHS report). Helpfully the report writer was able to be phoned and answer some questions during the hearing to clarify any questions or disputes the landlord had about the report.
For completeness I will comment on all HHS for this premises. Heating standard
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. The exemptions do not apply to this tenancy.
The HHS compliance statement says: a. The required heating capacity for the main living room of the rental property was 3.4 KW. b. The type of qualifying heater installed in the main living room heating capacity is a Heat Pump 4 kw.
The HHS report says the current heat pump meets the HHS standard.
I find that property was compliant with the HHS heating standard. Insulation standard
The Insulation standard requires that the premises have qualifying insulation in the ceiling cavity, and under the floor if the floor is a suspended floor. To be considered ‘qualifying insulation’ the insulation must meet a minimum R value. The insulation must also be in a reasonable condition.
The HHS does provide an exemption to the required for insulation in specific circumstances for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
The HHS compliance statement says: a. Ceiling insulation i. The entire premises has ceiling insulation. ii. The R-value is unknown. iii. The thickness is 200mm. iv. The date of insulation was unknown. v. The insulation was last inspected in 2022. b. Underfloor insulation i. The entire premises has underfloor insulation. ii. The insulation is polystyrene. iii. The insulation was installed in 2019. iv. The insulation was last inspected in 2022.
The HHS report says: a. The floor insulation is in poor condition and does not meet the HHS. b. The ceiling insulation is in poor condition and some areas are uninsulated, the R-value is unknown as no label is visible. c. The current floor and ceiling insulation does not meet the HHS.
The landlord accepted that the property was not fully insulated and did not meet the HHS, however he said it did have some underfloor insulation. Ventilation standard
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. The exemptions do not apply to this tenancy.
The HHS compliance statement says: a. All habitable rooms in the property have one or more windows, doors or skylights that open to the outside and meet the HHS standards. b. Each room with an indoor cooktop, bath or shower have an extractor fan. i. Specifically, the bathroom and lounge adjoining to the kitchen have 150 mm ducting and fans.
The HHS report says: a. The kitchen, three bedrooms and bathroom have windows. b. The kitchen is not equipped with a compliant extractor fan or rangehood that is vented to the outside. The current ventilation method (e.g., a standard fan, recirculating rangehood, or no extraction) does not meet the Healthy Homes Standards. In particular the small ducting ceiling fan does not appear to be functioning. c. The bathroom fan has little to no draw.
The HHS report writer explained that he used a piece of toilet paper and held it to the bathroom extractor fan which evidenced little draw.
The landlord explained the practical difficulty in installing a compliant extractor fan or rangehood in the kitchen, given the placement of the oven. However, he did accept that the ceiling fan was not working in any event.
Accordingly, I find the property failed to meet the HHS in respect of the ventilation standard. Draught Stopping Standard
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. The exemptions do not apply to this tenancy.
The HHS compliance statement says: a. The property does not have any open fireplaces. b. I have not been provided with the page of the HHS compliance statement that answers whether the property was free from any unintentional or unreasonable gaps or holes that allow noticeable draughts in or out of the building.
The HHS report says: a. The property is not free from unintentional and unreasonable gaps. b. It reported a section of rotten floor and damaged floor covering was found, resulting in a visible gap in the flooring. Photographs were provided to show the gap. a. It confirms there are no open fireplaces.
The landlord suggested that the tenant may have intentionally caused the hole in the kitchen floor. This was disputed by the tenant, and I consider this unlikely given the landlord accepted that there were a number of areas of the floor that were softening and it appeared it was not made of particularly robust material. I understand the hole in the kitchen floor occurred in May 2025, therefore this particular breach has only arisen very recently.
Accordingly, I find the property did not meet the HHS in respect of the draught stopping standard. Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains.
The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. The exemptions do not apply to this tenancy.
The HHS compliance statement says: a. The property has gutters and downpipes that efficiently drain storm water, surface water, and ground water to an appropriate outfall. b. The property does not have any enclosed subfloor spaces.
The HHS report says: a. the property appears to have insufficient water diversion in one or more areas. b. There were corroded gutters observed on the property. Photographs were provided. c. There are cracked weatherboards, holes, and missing or loose weatherboard joints/soakers were noted in several areas of the exterior cladding – the impact of which may allow moisture ingress. d. A photograph of a downpipe shows is it is rotten and cracked.
The landlord said he had plumbing work undertaken in respect of a drainage issue and the contractor did not identify any other issues with the spouting, therefore he was unaware of an issue. However, the photographs of the guttering and downpipes show severe corrosion. I consider that the property was not compliant with the moisture ingress and drainage standard and given the extent of the corrosion, this appears likely to have been an issue for the duration of the tenancy. Outcome – breach of HHS
I find the landlord has not ensured the property is compliant with the HHS standards and has committed an unlawful act. The tenant seeks exemplary damages in respect of the HHS breach, which I will address later in this decision. Compensation in respect of HHS
The tenant seeks compensation from the landlord in respect of the HHS claim.
The tenant seeks compensation as follows: a. Increased power bills from poor insulation - $1000 b. Health impact from breach - $2,000 c. Prolonged stress and hardship - $1,500 d. Rent refund for substandard conditions - $18,870-19,870.
The landlord disputed that the property was particularly cold and he was not finding it damp and had not had an issue with condensation since he moved back into the property. He also said that the tenant’s power usage (as evidenced in graphs she had submitted) was not unusually high.
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 under the RTA. 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 6 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; 6 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
One aspect of the tenant’s claim for compensation is the stress she has experienced for the landlord’s breaches.
The Tribunal has the authority to award damages for stress and inconvenience. 7 Nevertheless, it is not something that the Tribunal does lightly. The normal rules for damages apply and the tenant must prove a breach of an obligation or right, damage, that the damage was foreseeable and that an amount of damages is appropriate.
I consider it would be foreseeable that the tenant would suffer stress and hardship in the circumstances. Stress is intangible loss, making it difficult to value. Nice Place Property v Ogbourne and Couzens 8 provided bands to apply when making awards for emotional harm. Those amounts have been increased in the 2022 Tribunal case A v Singh 9 to take into account inflation: a. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $1,000.00. b.Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00. c. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 and upwards.
In this case, I consider the following factors are relevant: a. I consider the tenant is entitled to compensation for the breach of the landlord’s obligation to comply with the HHS to reflect the impact the breach would have had on her. 7 See section 77 (2) (n) of the RTA. 8 Nice Place Property v Ogbourne and Couzens (2017) NZTT 4046775 9 A v Singh [2022] NZTT Auckland 4315225 b. The tenants stress would be at lower end of the scale. I consider that had her stress been at the middle or upper end of the scale she would have filed an application shortly after she served her 14 -day notice in late 2024. c. The tenant did not get the benefit of a healthy home, which would in turn impact the tenant’s health and power costs, over the length of the tenancy, but particularly in winter. d. I consider $10.00 per week of the tenancy (117 weeks (16 May 2023 – 10 August 2025) would be reasonable in the circumstances.
Accordingly, I make an order for compensation of $1,170

SMOKE ALARMS

Under section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA, a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A. The relevant regulations are the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 (“SAI Regulations”)
The SAI Regulations set out the following requirements: -Landlords must ensure qualifying smoke alarms are installed and operational. -Smoke alarms must be installed in every sleeping space, or within 3 metres of the entrance to the sleeping space, and in each level of a multi-level dwelling. -All new smoke alarms must be photoelectric, have a battery life of at least eight years or be hard-wired, be installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions, meet international standards, be in full working order, and have their expiry date displayed. -Existing smoke alarms do not need to be replaced if they are in full working order and have not passed their expiry date.
The tenant’s evidence is that no smoke alarms were installed in the premises.
The landlord says that there was smoke alarm situated within 3 metres of the bedrooms. The landlord says on taking possession of the premises he located the smoke alarm in a draw.
The landlord was unable to provide a pre-tenancy inspection report (usually included as part of the standard form tenancy agreement template on the Tenancy Services website – and used in this case) to confirm that the smoke alarm was installed at the commencement of the tenancy.
In the absence of this information consider it unlikely that the landlord had ensured compliant smoke alarms were installed at the commencement of this tenancy. It seems to me more likely that the smoke alarm was installed during the previous tenancy (in which the tenant’s mother was the tenant and the tenant also occupied the property) and not checked when the new tenancy began.
I accordingly find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 10 the Court of Appeal said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.”
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. Before 10 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732(Cooke P) the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the following factors found in section 109 of the RTA: 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 the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed, d.the public interest, e.whether it is just to make the award.
Intention is proved where the party turns their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately sets out to commit the act. It is unnecessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully, it is enough that they intended to commit the act which is in fact unlawful. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the particular obligation they have failed to perform, confusion, lack of knowledge or ignorance of the law is no defence. A party is deemed to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional. Also, if the party is wilfully blind to the factual circumstances that give rise to an unlawful act, this may also be sufficient to prove they acted intentionally.
Failing to comply with the HHS and the obligation in respect of smoke alarms are deemed to be unlawful acts, for which exemplary damages can be ordered. 11 .
I must consider the relevant factors set out in section 109 of the RTA with respect to the HHS. a. The landlord was aware of his HHS obligations and said he did his best to comply within his own financial constraints. 11 See section 45 (1)(bb) of the RTA, b. The effect the noncompliance was that the tenant lived in an unhealthy home. The tenant said the premises was damp, cold and had mould growth. She said her children were often unwell with respiratory illness. c. It is in the tenant’s interest to receive exemplary damages for the unlawful act committed against her. d. There is a public interest in ensuring landlords comply with the HHS. e. It is just to award exemplary damages in the circumstances of this breach.
In terms of the relevant factors set out in section 109 of the RTA in respect to the smoke alarms breach I note: a. The landlord believed the property has compliant smoke alarms. I consider this breach careless as he was aware of his obligation and believed the property was compliant. b. There was no direct impact on, or harm caused to the tenant and no evidence of the tenant having raised with the landlord a concern about the absence of smoke alarms. She said she was unaware of the obligation in respect of smoke alarms until it was raised in the HHS report. c. It is however a fundamental breach of the landlord’s obligations, which exposed the tenant to risk for the period she was living in the premises. d. The public interest requires that landlords be encouraged to take such important safety responsibilities more seriously. e. There is a public interest in the Tribunal penalising non-compliance with the SAI Regulations
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered is $7,200.00. 12
The Tribunal must take a global approach to exemplary damages meaning one order to a single maximum irrespective of the number of breaches of a section. 13 The order made below is made on a global basis taking into account all of the landlords’ breaches of s 45 of the RTA,
The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 14
Having regards to the above factors I consider an award of exemplary damages of a third of the maximum is appropriate and make an order of exemplary damages of $2,400.00. This award does not reflect the smoke alarm breach given that breach appears to have been careless but not intentional. REIMBURSEMENT OF THE HHS INSPECTION INVOICE - $375
The tenant obtained her own Healthy Homes inspection report which has supported her claim that the premises was not compliant with the HHS. The tenant should be compensated for the cost of obtaining this report, Accordingly, I make an order of compensation for the HHS assessment invoice of $375.

RIGHT OF ENTRY

The tenant says that on 11 July 2025 at approximately 11am, she received a text message from a contractor, who informed me that the landlord had passed on her details so he could arrange access to inspect the garage for electrical work, which he wanted to do that day. She says she agreed to the visit and coordinated respectfully with the contractor to allow access but had to rearrange her schedule to accommodate it. 12 See Schedule 1A of the RTA. See section 45 (1A) of the RTA. 13 See MBIE v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583. 14 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781.
Section 48 (2) (d) of the RTA provides a landlord (which includes their contractor) may enter the premises during the tenancy for the purpose of carrying out necessary repairs to or necessary maintenance of, the premises, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry.
I find the landlord did not give the required notice pursuant to s 48 of the RTA. However, the tenant did not seek any order in relation to this issue therefore I make no further comment or orders in respect of this claim.

FILING FEE

As the tenant has had some success with her claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27.

SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 15
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. 16
The tenant has not had substantial success with her claim, in terms of quantum she was seeking, but has had substantial success with respect to the issues and I do not consider there is a public interest in publication of her name. Accordingly, I grant the tenant name suppression. 15 See Section 95 A (1) of the RTA. 16 See section 95 A (4) of the RTA.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

PROCEDRAL NOTE

The landlord initially indicated he might file a cross-application. I indicated to the landlord that if that was the case I would hear the tenants claim today and adjourn the matter for his claim to be filed. The landlord then indicated he would not file a cross-application and wanted the matter to be finally determined. The landlord is free to file an application in relation to this tenancy if he wishes, which will be considered on its merits.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300195 — Exemplary damages at 30H Harris Street, Te Puke, Te Puke 3119

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300195 — Exemplary damages at 30H Harris Street, Te Puke, Te Puke 3119

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

RETALIATORY NOTICE

HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS

SMOKE ALARMS

RIGHT OF ENTRY

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

PROCEDRAL NOTE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

RETALIATORY NOTICE

HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS

SMOKE ALARMS

RIGHT OF ENTRY

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

PROCEDRAL NOTE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions