What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304439 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 5304439?

Compensation: $2,450.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304439?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304439?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12543114-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304439 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 5304439?

Compensation: $2,450.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304439?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304439?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12543114-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5304439 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5304439 — net $3,478.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation (failure to maintain and breaches of HHS	$2,450.00	Compensation (failure to maintain and breaches of HHS
Exemplary damages (failure to maintain and breaches of HHS	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages (failure to maintain and breaches of HHS
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,478.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,478.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5304439 — net $3,478.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation (failure to maintain and breaches of HHS	$2,450.00	Compensation (failure to maintain and breaches of HHS
Exemplary damages (failure to maintain and breaches of HHS	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages (failure to maintain and breaches of HHS
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,478.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,478.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Mohit Enterprises Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $3,478.00 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
The landlord’s notice terminating the tenancy is declared to be retaliatory and of no effect.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied to declare the termination notice retaliatory and of no effect as well as making claims for compensation and exemplary damages. Two witnesses were called in support of these claims.
The landlord disputes these claims and filed a late cross application seeking termination of the tenancy for breaches of the tenancy agreement and compensation for damage. Background
The periodic tenancy commenced on 29 November 2024.
The tenancy address is on the same larger property as the landlord’s home.
On 25 June 2025 the tenant issued a 14-day notice to the landlord in accordance with section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). It required the landlord to bring the property up to healthy homes standards and attached a list of items needing urgent maintenance.
On 7 July 2025 the landlord responded to each of the items raised by the tenant, advising that some items that would be repaired urgently with others being repaired later.
On 14 July 2025 the landlord gave the tenant a notice to terminate the tenancy as they required the property for their daughter to move into (“the termination notice”). The end date for the tenancy was recorded as 27 August 2025.
The tenant remains in the property and filed this claim with the Tribunal on 15 July 2025. Tenant’s claims Retaliatory notice
The termination notice needs first to comply with section 54(1) of the RTA. On review, I consider that it does.
Section 54 of the RTA holds that the Tribunal may declare a notice to terminate a tenancy of no effect, and retaliatory if: 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.
The essential element of a retaliatory notice is the issuing of it in response to a tenant asserting a right, but it need not be the sole motivation, provided the landlord was partially motivated by the tenant asserting the right.
Factors to consider when determining whether a notice was retaliatory include: a. the timing of the notice, for example, was the notice given soon after the tenant exercised or asserted a right or made a complaint. The closer in time, the more likely it is to be retaliatory. b. The reason for the notice, for example what was the landlord’s motivation in giving the notice and has sufficient evidence been provided to prove that right. c. Evidence of complaint or exercise of rights. d. The landlord’s explanation.
On review of the evidence, I consider that the termination notice was retaliatory.
There is clear evidence of maintenance and healthy homes complaints raised by the tenant, that fall squarely within the ambit of the RTA. The timing was approximately two and a half weeks after the tenant raised these major concerns and only seven days after the landlord responded saying they would fix several items, but that some items were not urgent and would be investigated or fixed later.
In other words, the termination notice was given within a very short space of time of the tenant asserting a right under the RTA.
The landlord advised that they needed the property for their daughter to move into and at the hearing, the daughter advised that she needed her own space.
However, the daughter had been living in their home for some time and the landlord had never raised with the tenant the impending housing requirement for their daughter at any stage, until after the maintenance items were raised. There was no evidence of any change occurring that prompted the termination notice.
On an objective assessment I consider that the notice to terminate was retaliatory and at least partially motivated by the tenant exercising her rights under the RTA.
The tenant made this application within 28 working dates after receiving the termination notice and I therefore declare the notice to be of no effect. 1
I consider here that as the notice is of no effect, the tenant has not moved out and the tenancy is to continue, the tenant has been restored to the position as if the notice was not issued. I have accordingly not considered any further damages with respect to the termination notice. Failure to maintain and healthy homes breaches
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations with respect to a failure to maintain and healthy homes standards (HHS) under section 45 of the RTA. 1 See section 54 of the RTA.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
In addition, the RTA requires compliance with healthy homes standards (HHS). 2
The HHS provides a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in relation to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage. 3
The requirement for ceiling and underfloor insultation in all rental homes became compulsory on 1 July 2019 and requires that all residential premises be insulated to a minimum standard.
Landlords are also required to ensure their rental properties are free from unreasonable gaps or holes that cause noticeable draughts, and these requirements have been in place since 1 July 2025 for all private rental properties.
The tenant submits that there are, or have been, issues with: a. A lack of insulation in the ceiling (creating a very cold property), b. the seals and latches on all windows, c. the rotting kitchen underfloor, d. rotten kitchen cabinets, e. electrical issues, f. the toilet systems, g. major draughts to the property, h. the guttering requiring cleaning, i. the roofing, j. the bathroom and washhouse taps.
As a result of these breaches, the tenant is seeking 30 weeks of half the rent paid (totalling $9,000.00).
The tenant has provided several photographs in support of the claims. The photographs show there is no insulation in places, leak, or mould staining (including ceiling water damage), holes above the rangehood and rotten deck wood.
The correspondence shows that the tenant formally raised these issues with the landlord in June 2025.
In response, the landlord says that: 2 See section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA. 3 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. a. They believed the ceiling had insulation, and once advised by the tenant, understand it does not. They would be arranging someone to visit the property to check and install where required. b. They did not know about the window seals but were aware that the window handles needed replacing due to previous wear, tear and brittleness and would look at fixing these “asap”. c. They were aware of a small area in the kitchen that is indented, however consider it was not hazardous and did not need immediate attention as other issues take precedence; “we will get around to in the future”. d. The rotten kitchen cabinets are not hazardous and do not breach any healthy homes standards and have been “added to the list of repairs”. e. The deck was raised at the commencement of the tenancy, and as the tenant had advised that it wasn’t an issue it hadn’t been prioritised, however, they would arrange for a builder to inspect and develop a plan for repair. f. The electrical issues did not arise until a nearby car accident drove into an electrical pole, they had electricians visit and believed the issues were resolved. g. The toilet seat is still usable, not hazardous and does not breach any healthy homes standards so does not need immediate attention and will be added to the list of future repairs. h. The ceiling in the kitchen where a new fan was installed was caused by the electrical accident and they are waiting on a builder to repair. i. The guttering and roofing need to be done, and a roofer will be contacted to arrange for remedial works. j. The bathroom taps are not hazardous and do not need immediate attention and other issues may take precedence, however it has been added to the list of repairs. k. The outside tap issues will be inspected as soon as possible.
In summary the landlord stated that they agreed to remedy the issues that were hazardous or a breach of healthy home standards and that if issues were not resolved after the expiry of the 14-day notice they would reduce the rent by $50.00 a week until completed. They also stated that it was an older house, much of the staining was already present at the property and was not caused by any contemporary leaks or issues, and that they had endeavoured to promptly respond to all issues raised.
The landlord does not appear to have had a healthy homes inspection or report done. The tenancy agreement does not include any information required with respect to insulation at the property. 4 Nothing has been provided to prove that the property has previously or currently complied with healthy homes requirements, and it is likely that it has failed to comply with insulation requirements since the commencement of the tenancy.
It is not for the tenant to identify healthy homes deficiencies in the property after they have moved in, and I find that the landlord has been woefully inadequate in this regard. Based on the photographs, it appears there is insulation missing and the landlord did not dispute this.
It is no excuse for the landlord to say they didn’t know; they should have ensured that the property complied prior to the tenancy commencing. The tenant has identified a lack of insulation in the ceiling, but I cannot know whether there are other deficiencies with respect to the insulation or in fact, other healthy homes requirements, such as the draughts.
I consider it appropriate to award compensation for rent reduction, particularly for the more serious breaches, such as the lack of insulation and have awarded a portion of rent back to the tenant for the lack of insulation since the tenancy commenced.
The landlord has also wrongly believed that the only concerns were whether items in a house were hazardous or breached healthy homes. That is not the test under the RTA. Although many of the items had been repaired or resolved at the hearing, some items remained outstanding.
I have therefore awarded a further amount since the 14-day notice expired for all other items raised and a general failure to maintain.
The total amount of compensation awarded to the tenant is therefore $2,450.00. 5 Law relating to exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell, 6 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. 4 See section 13A of the RTA. 5 This is approximately 41 weeks where the property has failed to comply with insulation requirement, 41 weeks x $50, plus 8 weeks since the 14-day notice expired to the date of hearing $400.00. 6 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732.
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 in the RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that 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.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA.
The principle from the District Court decision of Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, 7 is that if there are multiple breaches of a particular section, then only one set of exemplary damages could be ordered for that breach.
Breaching any the obligations relating to a failure to maintain and HHS 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 RTA.
The landlord has failed to maintain the property and has failed to comply with heathy homes standards. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
A landlord must be considered to know and understand tenancy law in New Zealand; therefore, any breach must be intentional.
The requirements on landlords to ensure properties comply with healthy homes standards is crucial to ensure healthy and safe housing for occupants. The insulation requirements have been legislated for several years now, and the requirement for broader HHS compliance from 1 July 2025 has been widely publicised. The fact that there has been no healthy homes report or 7 Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited, DC Wellington, CIV 2014-085-13, 27 August 2014. investigation done, or provided with the tenancy agreement shows a complete unwillingness to fully understand or comply with the requirements.
In addition to compensation, I am therefore satisfied that it is appropriate and just to award a further $1,000.00 in exemplary damages to the tenant for these breaches. Other claims
The tenant also claims for the cost to purchase a Skydish of $148.81 as there was no television connection at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenancy agreement did not provide for this, and I therefore consider that this was not a landlord obligation, and this claim is accordingly dismissed. Landlord’s claims
The landlord filed a cross application seeking to terminate the tenancy. They say that the tenant has been seen smoking indoors, having unauthorised animals on the premises, not reporting damages (until the 14-day notice was issued), disturbing neighbours and exceeding occupancy limits.
Section 56 of the RTA states that the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if satisfied that the other party has committed a breach of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement and where the breach is capable of remedy, the landlord has given the other party a noticce specifying the nature of the breach complained of and required the party to remedy the breach within a reasonable period of time (being not less than 14 days).
I am satisfied the breaches alleged by the landlord are capable of remedy.
However, the landlord has not issued a notice to the tenant in respect of these breaches and has therefore failed to comply with s56 of the RTA.
In addition, I do not appear to have sufficient evidence in respect of these breaches, other than the submissions of the landlord. The tenant strongly disputes these claims, and the tenant’s witnesses gave evidence in support.
The landlord’s claim for termination for tenant breaches is dismissed.
The landlord has also included a claim for compensation relating to nicotine damage. I have not considered this further and note that the landlord is not prevented from making a further claim in respect of the final claimed amount. Final issues
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties have requested name suppression. As the tenant has been wholly or substantially successful, I have granted name suppression. The landlord has not been successful and did not advance any reasons that would outweigh the public interest in publication and name suppression is declined. See section 95A of the RTA. NP. I apologise to both parties for the delay in issuing this decision. I had intended to issue it earlier however a family bereavement caused unexpected delays. R Harvey-Lane 10 October 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304439 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304439 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions