What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304280 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 5304280?

Compensation: Bedroom Broken Window: $2,935.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304280?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304280?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12721114-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304280 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 5304280?

Compensation: Bedroom Broken Window: $2,935.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304280?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304280?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12721114-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5304280 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5304280 — net $3,463.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: bedroom broken window	$2,935.00	bedroom broken window
Exemplary damages: breach s45(1)(b) of the Act	$500.00	breach s45(1)(b) of the Act
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,463.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,463.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5304280 — net $3,463.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: bedroom broken window	$2,935.00	bedroom broken window
Exemplary damages: breach s45(1)(b) of the Act	$500.00	breach s45(1)(b) of the Act
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,463.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,463.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of [the tenant/s] and [the landlord/s] names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $3,463.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionTenant Compensation: bedroom broken window $2,935.00 Exemplary damages: breach s45(1)(b) of the Act $500.00 Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total award $3,463.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $3,463.00

Reasons

The hearing was held on 5 November 2025.
The tenant, [the tenant], attended the hearing, accompanied by her support person, [the tenant’s support person]. [The tenant] filed a detailed account of her claims together with the reasons in support of those claims.
The property manager, [the property manager], appeared on behalf of the landlord. He was assisted during the hearing by [the property manager’s counsel], in-house legal counsel for [the property management company]. [The property manager’s counsel] also prepared a detailed summary table outlining the landlord’s responses to each of the tenant’s claims, with references to relevant documents, inspection records, and applicable legislation.
I note that [the property manager]’s client, [the landlord], passed away during the latter part of 2024, and that her estate has since been administered by the Public Trust and later by the appointed executors. This context has bearing on the availability of funds for maintenance and on [the property manager]’s ability to respond to repair requests during the final months of the tenancy.
At the commencement of the hearing, I offered the parties the opportunity to engage in direct discussions to explore resolving the matter, given that no prior mediation had occurred. Although the parties discussed the matter, they were unable to reach an agreement, and the case proceeded to a full hearing on its merits.
I acknowledge that [the tenant] is a layperson and appeared without legal representation. Throughout the hearing, I endeavoured to ensure that her evidence and submissions were properly heard and understood. In presenting her case, [the tenant] spoke openly about her experience and the difficulties she faced in articulating her claims in legal terms.
To assist, I have sought to interpret and organise [the tenant]’s concerns in a way that makes them easier to follow in this decision. Where her evidence at times lacked structure, I provided clarification and guided the discussion to ensure that the essential points were fully addressed. I also indicated to [the tenant], as the hearing progressed, which aspects of her evidence required further explanation or supporting documentation.
I also explained to [the tenant] that, as the applicant, she bears the burden of proof in these proceedings. I made it clear that she must establish each of her claims on the balance of probabilities, meaning that I must be satisfied that it is more likely than not that the events occurred as alleged. I also reminded her of this standard as we progressed through the evidence, to ensure she understood what was required to substantiate her complaints.
In [the tenant]’s application, she seeks orders for compensation and exemplary damages, alleging that the property failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards and that the landlord breached its obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”). She also alleges that she was pressured to vacate the premises while unwell and financially constrained, and that the property’s condition caused significant adverse effects on her health and wellbeing.
I have carefully considered [the tenant]’s evidence, the landlord’s documentary bundle, and the oral submissions made by both parties. The issues are in sequence under the following headings: a. Healthy Homes Standards. b. Maintenance Obligations. c. Alleged Health Impacts. d. Conduct of the Property Manager and End of Tenancy. e. Compensation and Exemplary Damages. Background
The tenancy commenced on 19 November 2016 and ended on 8 February 2025.
I note that [the tenant]’s complaints relate specifically to the period between 27 August 2021 and 8 February 2025, being the duration during which [the property management company] managed the property. During this time, the tenancy was initially overseen by [the former property managers], with [the property manager] assuming responsibility as the primary property manager from approximately mid-2023.
[The tenant]’s application was filed on 15 July 2025. She alleges that the property was not maintained to a reasonable standard and did not meet the Healthy Homes Standards, despite [the property management company] being aware of the deficiencies through a “Warm Fuzzies” assessment report conducted in 2022. [The tenant] submits that the landlord continued to collect full rent without undertaking remedial work, and that the resulting poor condition of the home caused her and her daughter physical illness, including E. coli infection leading to kidney complications, as well as significant mental distress.
[The tenant] also contends that during the later period of the tenancy, she was pressured to vacate the premises after requesting compliance documentation and maintenance updates. She says that when she refused to sign an end-of-tenancy agreement initially, she was repeatedly contacted by [the property manager] and felt “bullied and disrespected.”
[The property manager] and [the property manager’s counsel], dispute these claims. They submit that the property was maintained in accordance with legal obligations applicable at the time and that the Healthy Homes Standards were not yet mandatory for this tenancy, which concluded before 1 July 2025, the date on which compliance would have become enforceable for this category of tenancy. They further state that all reported maintenance concerns were addressed within reasonable timeframes and that several of the alleged defects, such as dampness and mould, resulted from tenant lifestyle factors, including inadequate ventilation and cleaning.
[The property manager’s counsel] filed a memorandum of submissions and evidence in advance of the hearing. The document included a comparative table listing each claim alongside the landlord’s factual and legal responses. Issues for Determination
Healthy Homes Standards and Property Condition a. Whether the premises complied with the Healthy Homes Standards, or whether the landlord failed to meet her obligations under the Act and related regulations. b. If the property was not compliant, whether that non-compliance constituted a breach of the landlord’s duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, taking into account the property’s age, character, and the applicable law during the tenancy period. c. Whether any breach resulted in loss of amenity or caused harm to the tenant and her daughter.
Maintenance Obligations and Timeliness of Repairs a. Whether the landlord failed to respond adequately or promptly to the tenant’s reports of defects, including: i. Leaks in the roof and ceilings; ii. Defective or rotting windows; iii. Unsafe decking; iv. Defective kitchen cabinetry and moisture damage; v. Broken or insufficient ventilation, extractor fans, or drainage. b. Whether the steps taken by [the property manager] were reasonable in the circumstances, including the impact of the owner’s illness and estate administration on maintenance capacity. Health-Related Impacts
Whether the tenant’s alleged E. coli infection, subsequent kidney disease, or other health issues were causally linked to conditions at the property.
Whether those health effects warrant compensation or damages under the Act. Conduct of the Landlord and Property Manager
Whether the conduct of the property manager, [the property manager], amounted to harassment or intimidation, thereby breaching [the tenant]’s right to quiet enjoyment under section 38(2) of the Act, particularly in relation to communications concerning the end of the tenancy.
Whether the tenant was pressured or coerced into signing the mutual termination agreement. [The tenant] alleges that the termination was retaliatory, contrary to section 54 of the Act. Compensation and Exemplary Damages
If any breaches of the Act are established, what amount of compensation (if any) is appropriate to place [the tenant] in the position she would have been in had the breach not occurred?
Whether the landlord’s conduct justifies an award of exemplary damages, having regard to the seriousness, intentionality, and impact of the breach.
I now address each issue in turn. Issue 1: Healthy Homes Standards and Property Condition
The first issue is whether the property complied with the Healthy Homes Standards or whether the landlord otherwise failed to meet its duty to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The Law
The relevant provisions are found in sections 45(1)(b) and 45(1)(bb) of the Act, which require a landlord to: a. Provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; and b. Comply with the healthy homes standards.
The Healthy Homes Standards introduced under the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 prescribe minimum standards for heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress, and draught stopping. However, under Schedule 1 of those Regulations, these obligations did not become mandatory for private tenancies such as this one until 1 July 2025.
[The tenant] vacated the premises on 8 February 2025. Accordingly, the landlord was not yet legally required to achieve full Healthy Homes compliance. Nonetheless, the landlord remained obliged under section 45(1)(b) of the Act to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard, taking into account the property’s age and condition. The tenant’s evidence
[The tenant] gave extensive oral and written submissions alleging that the house failed to meet acceptable living standards. Her complaints included: a. An ineffective and costly heat pump, which she said was “loud, broken and too expensive to run”; b. Lack of adequate heating retention due to draughts, unsealed windows, and no doors to separate rooms; c. Absence of extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom; d. Dampness and mould, including in the carpet and cabinetry; e. Leaking roofs in her daughter’s bedroom and dining room; and f. Persistent cold temperatures making the house “impossible to heat.”
[The tenant] stated that these conditions caused her and her daughter significant health problems, including recurring bronchitis and, most seriously, E. coli infection leading to kidney disease.
She maintained that the landlord knew of these issues following a Warm Fuzzies inspection report in 2022 but “did nothing to bring the house up to standard.” The Landlord’s evidence
[The property manager] and [the property manager’s counsel] denied any breach of the Healthy Homes or repair obligations. They submitted that: a. The Healthy Homes Standards did not apply until 1 July 2025, several months after the tenancy ended; b. A section 13A Healthy Homes Compliance Statement dated 3 August 2022 was provided to [the tenant] following the Warm Fuzzies inspection; c. A heat pump in the main living area satisfied the earlier Housing Improvement Regulations 1947, which only required an “approved heating source”, not one of a prescribed capacity; d. There were no recorded complaints about the heat pump’s operation, and it was later tested and found functional; e. The property’s windows, though old, remained operable and met ventilation area requirements (at least 5% of the room’s floor area could open to external air); f. The roof leaks reported in August and September 2021 were attended to promptly by [the roofing company], and subsequent inspections on 26 August 2022, 26 April 2023, 7 August 2023 and 24 July 2024 found no further active leaks; g. The house’s overall condition was consistent with its age and construction, and the landlord acted reasonably in responding to issues as they were reported.
[The property manager’s counsel] emphasised that any perceived non- compliance before 1 July 2025 could not constitute a breach of the Healthy Homes Regulations, as those provisions were not yet enforceable for [the tenant]’s tenancy. Discussion
I accept the landlord’s submission that the Healthy Homes Standards were not yet legally binding for this tenancy, which ended in February 2025. I must therefore consider whether, under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord nonetheless failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Heating - A heat pump was installed in the living area and was operating when tested by the property manager. While the tenant found it expensive to run, there is no evidence that it was inoperative, unsafe, or that the cost of operating it was higher than comparable heat pumps on the market. The cost of use, in itself, does not constitute a breach, and the landlord was not obliged to provide an alternative or upgrade before July 2025. a. Accordingly, no breach was established.
Ventilation and Extractor Fans - The absence of extraction fans in the kitchen and bathroom does not amount to a breach, as there was no legal requirement for them prior to July 2025. Windows in those rooms provided ventilation, even if stiff or difficult to open. a. Accordingly, no breach under the Act or Regulations applicable at the time.
Dampness and Draughts - The evidence shows some age-related wear, single glazing, and potential draughts. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the condition was so severe as to render the property uninhabitable or beyond what would reasonably be expected for a dwelling of its age and character. The photographs and inspection records depict an older but still serviceable house. a. Accordingly, the issues raised are consistent with the age of the premises. I find no breach proven.
Roof Leaks - Work orders confirm that roof leaks were reported in August and September 2021 and attended to within days by [the roofing company]. The tenant continued to report intermittent issues, but no contemporaneous evidence (such as later photos or emails) substantiates ongoing leaks. On balance, I am satisfied that the landlord responded appropriately when notified. a. Accordingly, repairs were undertaken within a reasonable time. No ongoing breach has been proven.
Healthy Homes Compliance - Because compliance was not yet mandatory and a section 13A statement was provided, there is no breach under the 2019 Regulations.
While [the tenant]’s evidence illustrates genuine frustration and discomfort with the property’s age and condition, I am not persuaded that the landlord breached its statutory duties under section 45 of the Act during the relevant period. The house was old and imperfect, but it was not shown to have been maintained below a “reasonable standard” for its age, nor that the landlord ignored repair requests once formally made.
Accordingly, no breach of the Healthy Homes Standards or maintenance obligations is established under Issue 1. Issue 2: Maintenance Obligations and Timeliness of Repairs
The second issue concerns whether the landlord failed to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair or to respond adequately to [the tenant]’s maintenance requests. The Law
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, a landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the property and the likely period of its habitable life. This obligation arises once the landlord is made aware of a defect or the defect is reasonably discoverable on inspection (Barfoot & Thompson v Casey (Auckland, CIV 2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007).
The duty is one of reasonableness, not perfection. In other words, landlords are not required to upgrade or modernise an older property to new-build standards, but they must attend to necessary repairs within a reasonable timeframe once notified. The tenant’s evidence
[The tenant]’s evidence described multiple defects which, she said, were either ignored or inadequately addressed throughout the tenancy. Her complaints included: a. Roof Leaks - Ongoing leaks in her daughter’s bedroom and dining area, which she said persisted despite roofers attending in 2021. She claimed the ceiling was patched with tape and never permanently repaired, leading to dampness and visible water damage. b. Windows and draught: i. Rotten, unstable frames; windows that were inoperable or unsafe; a broken bedroom window that shattered and injured her daughter’s hand in March 2023; and a boarded-up window that was never replaced. She stated she reported the incident to property manager Ms Lawson by email on 28 March 2023, but repairs were not completed. ii. [The tenant] complained that the property was cold and draughty throughout her tenancy. She said that cold air entered through gaps around the windows and doors, many of which had rotten or loose frames, and that two windows, including her daughter’s bedroom window, were boarded up for extended periods, further reducing warmth and ventilation. She described the home as difficult and expensive to heat, stating that despite using the heat pump, the house “never stayed warm.” [The tenant] attributed recurring colds and bronchitis suffered by herself and her daughter to the draughts and general dampness in the property, and she maintained that the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to seal the gaps or carry out necessary repairs despite repeated complaints. c. Decking - Described as rotten, soft, and pulling away from the house. The tenant said the deck was unsafe to walk on and unusable during her tenancy. d. Kitchen and Bathroom Condition - Dampness, mould, and damaged cabinetry, including a warped kitchen floor and water-damaged cupboards. The tenant attributed this to leaking pipes and poor drainage. e. Drainage and Moisture - Water pooling near the foundations and running under the house during storms because one rear downpipe had become detached. She expressed concern that the lack of a moisture barrier contributed to the home’s dampness. f. Hot Water Cylinder - Located under the house, uninsulated and “sitting in mud,” which she said was unsafe and inefficient.
[The tenant] claimed these issues had been raised repeatedly via emails and inspection lists from 2021 to 2024. She produced photos, text messages, and inspection notes showing repeated correspondence, arguing that “nothing meaningful was done to fix the problems.” The Landlord’s Evidence
The landlord accepted that a number of issues had been raised, but submitted that all reported maintenance was attended to within reasonable timeframes and that some matters could not be lawfully or practically addressed due to limitations imposed by the owner’s health and the subsequent involvement of the Public Trust.
Roof leaks - [The property manager] confirmed two work orders were raised on 31 August 2021 and 16 September 2021, both attended by [the roofing company], who carried out repairs. He produced emails from [the tenant] confirming the roofer’s attendance. Later inspections (August 2023 and March 2024) noted only the taped ceiling patch but no active water ingress. He stated that inspections in 2024 and a revisit after the tenancy ended found “no evidence of water entering the property for at least eight months.”
Windows and draught Windows a. [The property manager] and [the property manager’s counsel] accepted that [the tenant]’s daughter’s bedroom window was broken in March 2023. This issue was brought to their attention. A routine inspection was done on 26 April 2023. Work orders were issued to [the glazing company], but the frame required replacement rather than glass repair. Due to the owner’s medical incapacity and the estate’s financial limits, the repair was not authorised before the tenancy ended. They maintained that other windows were serviceable and met minimum ventilation standards under the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947. Photographs from the 13 November 2024 inspection showed windows openable and intact. Draught b. [The property manager] and [the property manager’s counsel], denied that the property suffered from excessive draughts or that any breach of obligations occurred. They submitted that the home was consistent with its age and construction and that the Healthy Homes Draught Stopping Standard did not apply to this tenancy, which ended before 1 July 2025. [The property manager] stated that during inspections, all windows and doors were found to close properly, with no unreasonable gaps or air leaks. The boarded window, he said, was a temporary safety measure following breakage and did not materially affect the overall condition of the property. The landlord maintained that the house was functional and that some minor draughts were to be expected in an older, single-glazed dwelling.
Decking - The landlord acknowledged that the decking was weathered and aged but denied it was unsafe. Inspection photographs from 2022 to 2024 showed the deck in similar condition, with household items and washing present on it. [The property manager] stated, “I personally walked on the deck. It held firm under my weight of 110 kilograms.”
Kitchen and Bathroom - The landlord accepted that one kitchen cupboard and a skirting board were water-damaged. A plumber inspected and repaired minor leaks under the sink. The bathroom mould, they said, appeared “long-standing and easily removable,” and was not reported as an urgent issue during the tenancy.
Drainage and Moisture - The landlord acknowledged one downpipe at the rear of the property had become detached but said there was no evidence of flooding or water ingress under the house. The home was on raised piles, and the subfloor area was found dry at the vacate inspection.
Hot Water Cylinder - The landlord maintained that the cylinder was lawfully installed and not unsafe. It sat on a metal tray, and multiple plumbers inspected the area without raising concerns. The obligation to insulate cylinders only applied to replacements after 2002, and this cylinder pre-dated that requirement. Discussion
Having reviewed the evidence and oral submissions, I make the following findings on each alleged defect:
Roof Leaks: a. Documentary and email evidence confirm that [the property manager] arranged prompt attendance by roofers following the first reports in August and September 2021. b. The evidence also indicates that intermittent complaints continued, but no corroborating photographic or written proof of renewed leaks was provided after those repairs. c. Later inspections recorded a patched ceiling but no active moisture ingress. A patched ceiling indicates that a leak had occurred at some point during the tenancy; however, it does not establish that the leak was an ongoing issue. d. Accordingly, based on the evidence, I find that the landlord acted reasonably and within a reasonable timeframe. No ongoing breach established.
Windows and draught Windows a. [The tenant]’s daughter injured her hand while attempting to open the bedroom window in March 2023, which she described as rotten and unsafe. [The property manager] and [the property manager’s counsel] accepted that the window was broken and later boarded for safety but argued that no independent evidence was provided to verify the injury. b. On the balance of probabilities, I find it more likely than not that the incident occurred as [the tenant] described. The photograph showing the injury supports her account. I do not accept [the property manager]’s and [the property manager’s counsel]’s submissions that the landlord could not reasonably have foreseen or prevented the injury, particularly when taking into account the age and condition of the premises. c. [The property manager] and [the property manager’s counsel] acknowledged that the window was broken and sought quotations for a full frame replacement but was unable to proceed with the repair due to authorisation constraints within the owner’s estate. d. While the failure to repair was unfortunate, the window remained unfixed between 28 March 2023 and 08 February 2025. This equates to 97 weeks and 5 days. e. Accordingly, I find the landlord breached section 45(1)(b) of the Act in relation to failure to replace the broken window. Draught f. The evidence establishes that the property was an older, single-glazed dwelling where some level of air movement through window and door frames was to be expected. The tenant described cold air entering through gaps around the windows and doors and stated that this made the home difficult to heat. However, the landlord’s inspection records and photographs show that the windows and doors were capable of being opened and closed properly and that, when shut, no significant gaps were observed. I also note that the Healthy Homes Draught Stopping Standard was not yet legally applicable to this tenancy, which ended before 1 July 2025. g. On the evidence before me, there is insufficient proof that any draughts present were excessive or resulted from a failure by the landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The property’s imperfections were consistent with its age and construction, and there is no persuasive evidence that the draughts rendered the premises unreasonably cold or uninhabitable. Accordingly, I find that no breach of section 45(1)(b) of the Act is established in relation to the draught issue.
Decking a. The deck was weathered but remained functional. The tenant’s photos do not show structural collapse or immediate danger. b. There is insufficient evidence that the deck was unsafe to use or that the landlord was notified of an urgent safety risk. c. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the breach was established.
Kitchen and Bathroom Condition a. The evidence indicates that some areas of the kitchen and bathroom sustained water damage during the tenancy. The tenant provided photographs showing staining and deterioration to the kickboard beneath the kitchen sink and to parts of the bathroom skirting. The landlord’s records confirm that a plumber was engaged following the tenant’s report of a leak under the sink. The work order and invoice produced by the landlord show that the leak was attended to within a reasonable timeframe, and no further reports of water leakage were made thereafter. b. The mould described by the tenant appears to have been capable of removal through regular cleaning and ventilation. [The tenant] had a legal obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy (see section 40(1)(c) of the Act). The inspection photographs taken on 13 November 2024 show that, while some discolouration was visible on the bathroom ceiling, it was consistent with condensation rather than structural dampness. The landlord’s inspection records also note that the mould was removed during the post-tenancy clean and had not caused any lasting damage. c. I am satisfied that [the property manager] acted promptly once the water leak was reported and took reasonable steps to address the issue. I cannot rule out the possibility that the mould and staining observed were typical of an older dwelling. Accordingly, I find that [the property manager] responded adequately once notified, and no breach is established in relation to this issue.
Hot Water Cylinder a. The cylinder was functioning, and there is no legal requirement for insulation retrofits or relocation. b. I am not satisfied that there is a breach.
I accept that [the tenant] experienced inconvenience and frustration from living in an older property with recurring minor issues. However, the evidence indicates that [the property manager] responded promptly to the majority of reported defects and that most problems were addressed within reasonable timeframes. The only breach identified relates to the failure to replace the broken bedroom window, which remained boarded for approximately 97 weeks and five days. While this did not render the premises uninhabitable, it nonetheless represents a breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Act.
Accordingly, I find that the landlord breached her maintenance obligations in respect of the unrepaired window. No breach is established in relation to the alleged draught, roof leaks, decking condition, drainage, or other maintenance issues raised by the tenant. Issue 3: Health-Related Impacts
The third issue concerns whether the tenant’s health problems, including an E. coli infection, kidney complications, and mental health distress, were caused or contributed to by the condition of the property, and if so, whether the landlord is liable to compensate for those effects. The Tenant’s Evidence
[The tenant] gave detailed oral and written submissions concerning the impact of the property’s condition on both her physical and mental health. She stated that during her tenancy, she and her daughter suffered recurring respiratory and gastrointestinal illnesses, which she attributed to dampness, poor ventilation, and unsafe water quality at the property.
In particular, [the tenant] claimed that in 2023 she contracted E. coli from contaminated tank water that had not been cleaned for more than a decade. She produced hospital and GP notes confirming that she was admitted for a week with a kidney infection and abscesses resulting from an E. coli bacterial infection. She further stated that she was under district health nurse supervision for several weeks following discharge and that her condition has had ongoing health consequences.
She said that her daughter also experienced repeated bouts of bronchitis, and that their mental health deteriorated due to the damp, cold, and unclean environment. [The tenant] described feeling “housebound, humiliated, and deeply anxious,” saying she avoided visitors because the home was in disrepair.
She maintains that these effects are due to the landlord’s failure to provide a healthy and habitable dwelling. The Landlord’s Evidence
[The property manager] and [the property manager’s counsel] strongly disputed any causal link between the tenant’s health conditions and the property.
They submitted that the property was connected to the mains water supply, not a rainwater tank, and therefore the alleged E. coli contamination could not have originated from the house’s water system. They referred to two plumber inspection invoices confirming that the tank on site was used only for stormwater collection, not for drinking water.
They further argued that there was no medical evidence linking [the tenant]’s infection to the property, and that E. coli infections are commonly community- acquired from other sources such as food or contact exposure.
Regarding respiratory issues and mould, they maintained that any mould present was removable, arising from tenant lifestyle factors such as drying laundry indoors and failing to adequately ventilate rooms. Photographs taken at the final inspection showed that all mould had been successfully removed during the post-tenancy clean.
As to mental health distress, the landlord did not dispute that [the tenant] found the experience stressful, but contended that stress resulting from tenancy disagreements does not, in itself, establish legal liability unless tied to a proven breach. Discussion
I acknowledge that [the tenant] has produced credible medical documentation confirming that she was hospitalised with a serious bacterial infection and later experienced kidney complications. The evidence demonstrates that her illness was genuine and significant.
However, to award compensation, I must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was a causal link between her illness and a proven breach by the landlord.
On the available evidence, that causal link has not been established. a. Source of the E. coli Infection - The medical notes confirm the diagnosis but do not identify its origin. The plumber’s evidence that the property was on mains water, with the exterior tank limited to stormwater runoff, is persuasive. No inspection or testing record suggests that the home’s potable water was contaminated. I therefore cannot infer that the property caused or contributed to the infection. b. Respiratory and Damp-Related Complaints - I accept that the home, during the tenancy, was not subject to the Healthy Homes Standards. Its imperfections were consistent with its age and single glazing. There is insufficient evidence that dampness reached levels likely to cause medical harm. Inspections conducted in 2023 and 2024 did not record mould beyond minor cleaning issues, and no expert report was produced showing environmental health hazards. c. Mental Health and Stress - [the tenant]’s evidence regarding the emotional toll of living in the property was sincere and compelling. Nevertheless, compensation for distress under the Act requires a proven breach of obligation that directly caused the distress. As most of the property- condition allegations were not proven (save the unrepaired window), any resulting distress must be viewed as consequential to general dissatisfaction rather than statutory non-compliance.
I am sympathetic to [the tenant]’s health circumstances and do not doubt that she endured physical illness and emotional strain during her tenancy. However, the evidence does not demonstrate that these conditions were caused by any breach of the landlord’s obligations.
Accordingly, no compensation is awarded under this issue. Issue 4: Conduct of the Landlord and Property Manager
The fourth issue concerns whether the conduct of the landlord’s agent, [the property manager], amounted to harassment, intimidation, or an unlawful act under the Act, and whether the tenant was pressured or coerced into ending the tenancy. The Tenant’s evidence
[The tenant] contends that, after she raised repeated requests for maintenance and compliance reports, she was pressured by [the property manager] to leave the property. She said that following the “Warm Fuzzies” compliance report and subsequent email exchanges in 2023 and 2024, her relationship with the property manager deteriorated. She stated that after she again requested written confirmation of Healthy Homes compliance and the landlord’s plan to address outstanding maintenance, [the property manager] sent an email suggesting that “she might want to find a new place to live.”
[The tenant] said she interpreted this as a retaliatory response to her maintenance complaints and felt bullied and cornered into agreeing to end the tenancy. She was, at that time, unwell and financially vulnerable. She said [the property manager] contacted her repeatedly over several weeks to finalise the end-of-tenancy arrangements and presented her with a “mutual termination agreement.” She ultimately agreed to move out in February 2025 but maintains that she did so under duress.
[The tenant] described the process as “intimidating and unfair,” noting that she was “constantly under pressure” and “did not feel like I had a choice.” She said that this conduct caused significant stress, particularly as she was recovering from illness and trying to secure alternative accommodation. The Landlord’s Evidence
[The property manager] and [the property manager’s counsel] denied that there was any harassment or improper pressure placed on the tenant.
They said the communication about ending the tenancy was initiated in good faith after the landlord ([the landlord]) suffered a stroke in August 2024, leaving no one authorised to approve substantial maintenance works.
[The property manager] explained that from August to November 2024, he was unable to obtain instructions for larger repairs because of the owner’s incapacity and the transition to Public Trust administration. The property’s financial resources were frozen pending probate, and only urgent maintenance under $500 could be authorised.
He said that, given the tenant’s concerns about the property’s condition and the estate’s inability to fund repairs, it was both practical and fair to discuss ending the tenancy early so that [the tenant] could find improved housing.
[The property manager] stated that he approached [the tenant] “respectfully and transparently,” offering a rent reduction to assist her in saving for relocation. He produced emails confirming that a rent reduction was approved and that [the tenant] was encouraged to seek advice before making any decision.
The email chain shows that the termination was mutual, with the tenant signing a written mutual termination agreement and giving her own notice in January 2025.
[The property manager’s counsel] submitted that such discussions are permitted under section 51 of the Act, which allows parties to end a tenancy by mutual agreement. She said there was no threat, eviction, or retaliatory act under section 54, and that the tone of correspondence was professional throughout. Discussion
I have reviewed the correspondence and oral submissions relating to this issue. The following points are material.
Context of the End of Tenancy a. [The property manager]’s principal, [the landlord], became incapacitated in mid-2024 and passed away later that year. b. During this period, [the property manager] required Public Trust approval for all maintenance expenditure, and the estate’s solicitors limited approvals to $500 per job. c. [The property manager]’s communications with [the tenant] occurred against that backdrop.
Content and Tone of Communications a. The emails produced by [the property manager] show that he raised the prospect of ending the tenancy as a practical solution given the estate’s inability to fund major repairs. b. The communications are phrased as invitations to discuss options, not as directives or threats. The correspondence also includes offers of support and a rent reduction to assist the tenant’s relocation. c. There is no evidence that [the property manager] issued a notice to terminate or otherwise attempted to force the tenant’s departure outside of lawful means.
Tenant’s Perception and Vulnerability a. I accept that [the tenant] was experiencing significant health and financial difficulties at the time and that she felt emotionally pressured by the situation. b. However, the legal test is whether the landlord’s conduct was retaliatory to [the tenant] exercising her legal rights under section 54 of the Act, not whether the tenant felt distressed.
Mutual Termination a. The termination was formalised through a mutual agreement, signed by both parties. b. [The tenant] retained possession until her nominated vacate date and paid reduced rent during that time. c. There is no evidence that she was misled or deprived of a genuine opportunity to decline the proposal.
Having considered all the evidence, I find no indication that [the property manager] engaged in harassment, bullying, or any behaviour amounting to an unlawful act under section 38(3) of the Act. The communications between the parties were professional and arose from genuine attempts to manage the tenancy within the constraints faced by the landlord’s estate.
I am satisfied that the termination of the tenancy was mutually agreed. The evidence shows that discussions about ending the tenancy occurred in the context of the estate’s limited ability to authorise maintenance work. There is no evidence that [the property manager]’s approach to [the tenant] regarding termination was retaliatory or connected to her exercising her legal rights under section 54 of the Act. Rather, the correspondence reflects a practical effort to assist the tenant in relocating from a property that could not be improved at that time.
For these reasons, I conclude that no unlawful act has been established on the part of [the property manager] in relation to this issue. Issue 5: Compensation and Exemplary Damages
The final issue to address is whether the tenant is entitled to compensation or exemplary damages arising from the landlord’s conduct or any breaches of the Act. The Law
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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. The Tenant’s Position
[The tenant] seeks total compensation of $78,900, representing the full rent paid during [the property management company]’s management of the property, together with general damages for distress and exemplary damages for alleged unlawful acts.
She argued that the property was not habitable and failed to meet Healthy Homes and maintenance standards; and a. The landlord unlawfully continued collecting rent despite knowing of non- compliance; b. [The property manager] ignored maintenance requests and later pressured her to vacate; c. These acts caused health deterioration, emotional harm, and loss of enjoyment of the premises. The Landlord’s position
The landlord submits that: a. There were no breaches of Healthy Homes or section 45 obligations established on the evidence; b. All repairs were attended to promptly and reasonably once reported; c. The mutual termination was voluntary and not coercive; d. Any distress or inconvenience experienced by the tenant was unfortunate but not compensable under the Act; e. There was no deliberate or reckless conduct capable of supporting exemplary damages.
The landlord further notes that a rent reduction from $450 to $300 per week was already granted between November 2024 and 08 February 2025 in recognition of the property’s age and the estate’s maintenance constraints. Compensation
I summarise my findings in Issues 1–4 as follows: a. The property was not required to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards before 1 July 2025; b. The landlord responded appropriately to reported maintenance issues, and in the majority of instances, [the tenant] did not discharge the burden of proof. However, a maintenance breach is established in relation to the unrepaired bedroom window, which remained boarded between 28 March 2023 and 8 February 2025; and c. There is no evidence of harassment amounting to a breach of quiet enjoyment, nor any retaliation in connection with the end-of-tenancy process.
I accept that the unrepaired bedroom window, which remained boarded for an extended period, reduced the amenity of that room and caused discomfort. The period between 28 March 2023 and 8 February 2025 equates to approximately 97 weeks and 5 days.
While the landlord’s inability to undertake full repairs stemmed partly from the owner’s medical incapacity and the financial restrictions placed on the estate, section 45(1)(b) of the Act imposes a continuing duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, regardless of ownership changes or management limitations. In circumstances where the property manager is aware of such ongoing issues, an appropriate course of action may be to reduce the rent, rather than continue collecting the full amount while the defect remains unresolved.
Balancing these factors, I find that [the tenant] and her daughter experienced an unacceptable loss of amenity and discomfort over a period of nearly two years. The appropriate measure of compensation is a rent reduction of $50 per week, representing a notional adjustment for the discomfort and reduced usability of the bedroom. Accordingly, compensation of $4,885.00 is awarded to the tenant.
The evidence confirms that from November 2024 to 8 February 2025, the landlord provided a temporary rent reduction from $450 to $300 per week, equating to a $150 per week reduction for approximately 13 weeks, or $1,950.00 in total. This reduction recognised the property’s limited condition and the landlord’s inability to complete repairs during the estate administration period.
Having already benefited from this rent reduction, [the tenant] has in part been compensated for the reduced amenity and discomfort caused by the boarded window. Accordingly, the total compensation of $4,885.00 is reduced by $1,950.00, resulting in a net compensation award of $2,935.00. Exemplary damage
Under section 109 of the Act, I may award exemplary damages where a party has intentionally committed an unlawful act, having regard to the nature and seriousness of the conduct, the effect on the other party, the interests of the person against whom the order is made, and the need for deterrence.
In Stoeveken v Aso & Toheriri [2022] NZDC 9698, Judge Tuohy quashed the Tribunal order in imposing $500 exemplary damage and said at [35] “... As the Adjudicator in the second decision stated when declining to award exemplary damages to the landlord, the unlawful act must have been committed intentionally in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge that they were not meeting their obligations. The evidence does not establish that.”
In the present case, there is no dispute that [the property manager] was aware that the bedroom window remained unrepaired. There is also no dispute that [the property manager], as a professional property manager, would have informed the landlord of the need to remedy this breach.
The issue is why the landlord did not authorise [the property manager] to carry out the repair. From the evidence, I accept that there were difficulties obtaining approval for any expenditure over $500 following the passing of [the landlord]. However, this does not explain why the breach, first reported to the property manager on 28 March 2023, well before [the landlord]’s death, was never remedied.
Those circumstances cannot reasonably justify the failure to repair the window for almost two years. The extended period during which [the tenant]’s daughter was required to occupy a bedroom without a functioning window represents a serious lapse in maintenance and, in my view, a conscious disregard of the landlord’s legal obligations. The landlord’s conduct demonstrates an element of intent. The resulting loss of amenity and discomfort, together with the potential safety and security risks arising from the unrepaired window, were matters of common sense and would have been apparent to any reasonable property manager. Leaving the window in this condition for almost two years cannot properly be characterised as an unintentional oversight.
The effect on [the tenant] and her daughter was considerable. While the landlord’s inaction was partly attributable to [the landlord]’s illness and estate restrictions, the outcome for [the tenant] and her daughter remained severe. I therefore consider it appropriate to impose a modest award of exemplary damages to reflect the seriousness of the breach and the need for deterrence.
Accordingly, exemplary damages in the amount of $500.00 are awarded. Filing fee
Because [the tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claims, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppressions
Both the tenant and the landlord have applied for name suppression. Under section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the Tribunal may, on its own initiative or on application, order that the names and identifying details of any party not be published if publication would be unfair or cause undue hardship.
In this case, I am satisfied that publication of the parties’ names would cause unnecessary hardship and that suppression is appropriate. The tenant, [the tenant], has spoken candidly about her personal health circumstances, including serious illness and the emotional distress she experienced during the tenancy. Publication of her name in connection with these matters would be likely to cause her further distress and infringe her privacy interests without serving any wider public purpose.
The landlord’s name will also be suppressed. The landlord is now deceased, and the property is administered by her estate through professional executors. Publication could therefore unfairly associate the matter with individuals who were not directly responsible for the day-to-day management of the tenancy. The property management company management company], acted in a representative capacity only, and publication would not serve a meaningful deterrent or public interest function.
For these reasons, I direct that the names and identifying details of both the tenant and the landlord (including the property management company and its employees) are suppressed from publication.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304280 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304280 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions