What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5300300?

The tribunal order states: LPM Property Management New Zealand Limited must pay Atarina Awarau

How much money was awarded in case 5300300?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300300?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300300?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13064655-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5300300?

The tribunal order states: LPM Property Management New Zealand Limited must pay Atarina Awarau

How much money was awarded in case 5300300?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300300?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300300?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13064655-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1137 High Street, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5300300 — Healthy homes

Order

LPM Property Management New Zealand Limited must pay Atarina Awarau $2,240.46 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (5528458-004) to Atarina Awarau immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for failing to maintain the premises and comply with healthy homes standards and refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has filed a cross application for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Any party bringing a claim to the Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim. The Tenancy Tribunal applies a civil standard of proof, determining matters on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each applicant must prove that it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be supported by other acceptable evidence. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents such as emails, texts, and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden. Tenant claims Has the landlord breached their maintenance obligations and healthy homes standards?
Under section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), a landlord must: a. provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair under s45(1)(b); b. comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) under section 45(1)(bb) RTA. For a tenancy that commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. In this case, the tenancy was renewed from 11 December 2021 which means the tenancy was required to comply with HHS by 11 March 2022. All tenancies, regardless of their start date, were required to comply by 1 July 2025 (the final compliance date); c. Compliance with HHS also requires the landlord to ensure that all installed or provided things are maintained in good working order and, if they cannot be maintained, replaced within a reasonable time. See regulation 6 HHS.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under section 45 is to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) of the RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations in the following respects: a. Failure to address mould and moisture in bedroom 1 such that the tenant stopped using the room as a bedroom; b. Failure to repair a downpipe that kept falling off; and keep gutters clear and free draining; c. Failing to repair gaps and draughts at the property in the front room; d. Failing to address mould and moisture in the bathroom, including mould around the bathtub and a warped wall; e. Failing to install a compliant extractor fan in the bathroom.
As discussed at the hearing, the tenant was unable to provide adequate evidence to prove the claims in paragraphs 8(a-d) above. The tenant was unable to provide photos showing any mould or moisture ingress into the rooms; there was little evidence that the tenant notified the landlord of the problems through any written communications such as texts and emails. Where issues were raised, there is evidence that the landlord attended to the issues. For example, there is evidence that the landlord had the heat pump serviced and instructed a contractor to address gaps in the front room windows. The landlord also provided evidence such as photos taken at routine inspections in which no mould or moisture was detected in the rooms. In summary the claims are not proved and must be dismissed.
However, a Healthy Homes assessment completed for the landlord on 28 January 2021 records that the bathroom extractor fan did not comply with HHS because it was vented into the ceiling cavity and required venting to the exterior. The landlord did not have this work completed before the tenancy ended on 26 July 2025, more then three years after the compliance date and also after the final compliance date of 1 July 2025.
The landlord has clearly breached the ventilation standard under the HHS and they have committed an unlawful act. When asked why the work was not done, the property managers had little explanation except that the owner mentioned financial constraints. They say that the work was completed after this tenancy ended. Exemplary damages
The tenant seeks an award of exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 1 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) 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. 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.
Exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
I am satisfied that the landlord’s failure to comply was intentional because he knew (or ought to know) the work required and the deadline for compliance, which was also set out in the HHS assessment report.
It is of significant interest to tenants and the public that landlords comply with their maintenance and HHS obligations. The HHS was a major piece of legislation designed to address a well-documented lack of healthy, warm, dry rental houses. The legislation was well publicised over a long period with the initial provisions regarding insulation coming into force from 1 July 2019 and remaining standards from 1 July 2021. Having regard to those factors, for failure to install a compliant extractor fan in the bathroom in breach of the ventilation standard, I award $3,500, being 50% of the maximum available award to reflect 1 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the seriousness of failing to comply over a period more than 3 years (11 March 2022 to 26 July 2025). Landlord claims

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 26 July 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing (1 day) at the end of the tenancy which is accepted by the tenant.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. In relation to the cleaning invoice, I have reduced the amount claimed. Given, that the landlord did not provide a compliant bathroom extractor fan vented to the exterior, with the existing fan vented into the ceiling above, I consider it would not be fair to award cleaning costs for the bathroom ceiling which was likely contributed to by the lack of an effective extractor. The amount awarded also includes the separate costs claimed to clean scribbling off the walls.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
I find on the evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Hole in the exterior garage wall; holes in the lounge and kitchen walls The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. In relation to the damage to the pillar wall in the lounge, I am not satisfied that this part of the claim is proved. The photo taken at the end of the tenancy is close up and shows damage to the edge of the pillar requiring plastering and repainting. The pre-tenancy photo of the area is taken from a distance. There appears to be scuffing on the area but the photo is too far away to clearly see the condition at the foot of the pillar. Therefore, I am reducing the amount claimed.
The amounts ordered are proved.
In summary, the effect of the above awards is that landlord must pay the tenant $2,240.46 and the full bond must also be refunded to the tenant. Because the tenant has substantially succeeded in the proceedings, she is also entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300300 — Healthy homes at 1137 High Street, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300300 — Healthy homes at 1137 High Street, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management