What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304845 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 5304845?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,396.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304845?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304845?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12231539-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304845 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 5304845?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,396.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304845?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304845?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12231539-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5304845 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5304845 — Rent arrears | 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 5304845 — net $2,644.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 August 2025	$6,396.00	Rent arrears to 17 August 2025
Exemplary damages - failure to allow entry	$200.00	Exemplary damages - failure to allow entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,644.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,644.00

Claims and awards for application 5304845 — net $2,644.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 17 August 2025

Amount: $6,396.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 17 August 2025

Exemplary damages - failure to allow entry

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Exemplary damages - failure to allow entry

Filing fee reimbursement

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

Net award

Landlord $2,644.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $2,644.00

Dismissed claims

Healthy Homes Standards — Should the Tribunal reimburse the tenant the cost of the Healthy Homes assessment report they obtained?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages Filing Fee Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Louise Emma Urban and Rodney Gordon Urban must pay [The landlord/s] $2,644.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,980.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The landlord’s application for exemplary damages for abandonment of the tenancy by the tenant and for their failure to provide a forwarding address is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for gardening costs is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for a reduction of the term of the tenancy, a reduction of rent, a rent refund, and for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a reduction of the term of the fixed term tenancy, a reduction of rent, a rent refund, and compensation for various issues which I will detail later.
For convenience I will refer to the parties in the singular. Background
The tenancy started on 16 August 2024. It is a fixed term tenancy until 17 August 2025.
The tenant left the tenancy on 22 June 2025 without notifying the landlord. The tenant has moved to new premises and has stopped paying rent.
The tenant’s reason for abandoning the tenancy is due to a report they obtained which shows the premises are not compliant with the Health Homes Standards (HHS).
There has been a lot of communication between the parties by text and email. Both have provided documentary evidence and submissions.
I heard oral evidence from the parties today. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it.
I record here that both parties asked the Tribunal to deal with the bond by way of an order now. Issues
On the tenant’s application the issues to be determined are these: •Should the tenant be released from their fixed term tenancy? •Was the rent too high? Should the Tribunal refund $145.00 per week over 46 weeks, an amount of $6,670.00? •Should the Tribunal refund 2 weeks’ rent for the period when the tenant paid rent for this and their new tenancy? • Should the Tribunal reimburse the tenant the cost of the Healthy Homes assessment report they obtained? •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? •Can the tenant claim the cost of buying bottled water? •Can the tenant claim for pet-sitting 2 goldfish - $1,610.00? •Should the Tribunal award the tenant the cost of a pool for the goldfish they have left behind?
On the landlord’s application the issues to be determined are these: •Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears and for rent to the end of the fixed term tenancy? •Has the landlord proved claims for exemplary damages? •Has the landlord proved a claim for compensation for gardening/lawn costs? Relevant legal considerations Statutory provisions
Section 16 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out the requirements for notifying a change of name or address.
Section 25 RTA sets out the provisions that relate to a market rent review. On a fixed term tenancy, no application may be made later than 3 months after the tenancy commences or the date of the last rent review.
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
Section 48 RTA sets out a landlord’s right of entry. Section 48(2)(cb) RTA allows a landlord to enter to comply with the HHS with at least 24 hours’ notice between 8am and 7pm.
Section 48(4)(b) RTA provides that it is an unlawful act for a tenant not to allow the landlord to enter to comply or prepare to comply with the HHS.
Section 61 RTA sets out what happens when a tenant abandons a tenancy.
Section 66 RTA sets out what needs to be established before the Tribunal can reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy.
Section 109 RTA sets out what must be established before the Tribunal can award exemplary damages.
Schedule 1A RTA sets out the maximum amounts that can be awarded by way of exemplary damages. Compensation and exemplary damages
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.
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 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has intentionally 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.
In Birch, the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Discussion
First I will address the tenant’s application as it was the first application filed.

Should the tenant be released from their fixed term tenancy?

This is an application by the tenant for a reduction of the term of their tenancy.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A tenancy agreement is a contract between a landlord and a tenant. The Tribunal does not interfere with contracts lightly.
Here, the tenant’s reason for wanting to be released from the tenancy early is because the assessment they obtained showed some non-compliance with the HHS. The tenant says that affected their health.
I am satisfied from the evidence the landlord produced that the premises were assessed for HHS compliance before the tenancy began, and the defects notified in the assessment were rectified before the tenancy started.
The RTA does not require a landlord to have the premises professionally assessed. In this case the landlord had a builder undertake the assessment.
I am satisfied that at the start of the tenancy the premises were probably HHS compliant, possibly except for insulation above the laundry ceiling.
The assessment the tenant obtained showed 3 issues. Insulation over 2 access hatches (manholes) and in the roof cavity above the laundry was missing. The underfloor insulation needed some stapling to remedy some areas that had slipped. The ensuite bathroom louvre window and 2 small windows in the main bedroom allowed draughts.
These matters were not so significant that the Tribunal would consider the landlord to be in breach. They were essentially maintenance issues.
Premises that are assessed as HHS compliant can still require later work to keep that status. That does not mean the landlord has failed to comply; it simply means that repair and maintenance work can be needed over time.
The Tribunal has observed over time that reports from different assessors raise issues that other assessors do not. The lack of insulation over a manhole for example is a minor matter indeed.
The tenant said as the temperature dropped, her arthritis flared. She attributes that directly to the HHS failures identified by their assessor.
Yet, the assessment the tenant had done confirmed compliance with the heating standard.
The tenant produced a letter from her rheumatologist. The writer states that the tenant has a long history of juvenile inflammatory arthritis but has maintained a stable remission for a significant period. She said that the tenant’s flare-up coincided with ‘a drop in temperature and exposure to a cold and draughty house environment’.
The specialist can only relay what the tenant told her. As noted, there was no breach of the heating standard. The absent insulation affected a small area only, and it was only 2 small windows in the main bedroom and the louvre window in the ensuite bathroom that allowed draughts.
The photos produced in evidence show a large 5-bedroom, 3-living room house of a high standard. The minor HHS compliance issues were easily able to be remedied.
I do not find that the minor HHS lapses identified by the tenant’s assessor constituted an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances, bearing in mind that the tenancy started during winter the year before – 16 August 2024. The tenant’s symptoms of arthritis started suddenly on 2 April 2025, when the temperature dropped.
Without a proven unforeseen change in circumstances, the Tribunal cannot reduce the term of the fixed term tenancy. Nor need it assess the respective hardship of the parties.
The Tribunal finds it likely that the tenant left this tenancy for their own reasons, having earlier signalled a desire for the tenancy to end earlier. The tenant has seized on the HHS deficiencies which I have noted to be minor as a way of justifying their decision to leave. The landlord made them aware that they could leave the tenancy early but would remain liable for rent.
As the landlord put it, the tenant weaponised the HHS for their own benefit. The Tribunal largely agrees with that assessment. This part of the tenant’s application is dismissed. Was the rent too high? Should the Tribunal refund $145.00 per week over 46 weeks, an amount of $6,670.00?
The Tribunal does not interfere with rents. It has no general discretion to do so. The only way rent can be reduced is if the tenant applies for a market rent determination under section 25 RTA. An application under that section is strictly time-framed; it must be made no later than 3 months after the fixed term tenancy started or after the last rent review.
The rent for this tenancy has been $995.00 since it started on 16 August 2024. The application for a market rent determination is well out of time. This part of the application is dismissed. Should the Tribunal refund 2 weeks’ rent for the period when the tenant paid rent for this and their new tenancy?
There is no legal basis for the Tribunal to refund any rent to the tenant. Given my finding that the term of the tenancy cannot be reduced, the tenant’s rent liability remains until the tenancy ends on 17 August 2025. This part of the application is dismissed. Should the Tribunal reimburse the tenant the cost of the Healthy Homes assessment report they obtained?
The tenant obtained the HHS assessment report as evidence to support their decision to leave the tenancy and to establish a case to have the term of the tenancy reduced.
Each party bears the cost of producing their evidence. I make no order requiring the landlord to fund the cost of the tenant’s evidence. This part of the application is dismissed.

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation?

Compensation follows a breach by one party of their statutory responsibilities. Unlike exemplary damages it is not punitive. It simply recognises loss and compensates the loss.
The tenant has claimed for the cost of filling 2 gas bottles following a gas leak in the line to the kitchen ($118.00); drain cleaner to clear the insinkerator ($15.99); and compensation for time and fuel costs attending a heating shop to check whether the remote control for the gas fire was faulty ($200.00).
The tenant has not produced invoice evidence to support these claims. The landlord said the application was the first time he became aware of any request for compensation.
The correct process was for the tenant to ask the landlord to remedy any maintenance or repair issues and only if the landlord refused to then go ahead and do what was needed.
These claims have come out of the blue for the landlord. Without a reasonable request to the landlord that was not complied with, the Tribunal is not persuaded to award the tenant compensation. This claim is dismissed.

Can the tenant claim for the cost of buying bottled water?

The tenant claims that the water tasted like copper and was undrinkable forcing them to purchase water from the supermarket. They seek compensation of $1,227.60.
There is no evidence to establish that the water was unpotable or undrinkable or affected by copper. The landlord said he was unaware of any water issues until the tenant lodged the application. He said he had never experienced any issues with the water. This claim fails for lack of proof and is dismissed. Can the tenant claim for pet-sitting 2 goldfish - $1,610.00?
The tenant has claimed the cost of ‘pet-sitting’ the landlord’s 2 goldfish. - $5.00 per day for 322 days.
The landlord explained that he provided a guide for the tenant at the start of the tenancy with helpful information. The landlord asked the tenant to feed 2 goldfish with food provided. The tenant also had goldfish in another pond at the premises.
If the tenant was not willing to feed the fish, they could simply have declined to do so. They cannot reasonably expect to make this claim towards the end of the tenancy when there was no issue raised beforehand.
This claim is dismissed. Should the Tribunal award the tenant the cost of a pool for the goldfish they have left behind?
The tenancy remains live. The tenant can still take the pool for the goldfish from the premises. The landlord is not required to reimburse the cost of the purchase of the pool, claimed at $59.00. This part of the application is dismissed.
Now, I will address the landlord’s application. Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears and for rent to the end of the fixed term tenancy?
It follows from my decision not to reduce the term of the tenancy that the tenant remains liable for rent to the end of the tenancy. In other words, the tenancy remains live, even though the tenant has abandoned the tenancy. I find the amount of rent to 17 August 2025 proved by the production of rent records not challenged by the tenant as to quantum.
I have made the rent arrears order to 17 August 2025 because there is no probability that another tenancy will be in place for the remaining 10 days of this tenancy.

Has the landlord proved claims for exemplary damages?

The landlord sought exemplary damages for abandonment of the tenancy by the tenant.
While I as satisfied that the tenant abandoned the tenancy (left without notice not intending to return) I cannot award exemplary damages because section 66(5) provides that a tenant commits an unlawful act if, without reasonable excuse, he or she abandons the premises while the rent is in arrear.
When the tenant abandoned the tenancy, the rent was not in arrear. The arrears have accrued since (despite the tenant’s stated intention that they would pay rent to the end of the tenancy). And because of my finding that the term of the tenancy will not be reduced, the tenant is liable for rent until the tenancy ends. The landlord has not taken possession of the premises and considers the tenancy to remain in place. That is correct.
There has been no unlawful act by the tenant refusing to provide a forwarding address. Section 16 RTA refers to the change of name, contact address, or address for service during the tenancy. Since this tenancy remains live, the details contained in the tenancy agreement are considered to remain as recorded. That the tenant might reside elsewhere does not alter the status of this tenancy as a live tenancy; the address for service remains the tenancy address and the contact emails are the same.
I find proved a claim for exemplary damages for the tenant refusing the landlord access to remedy the matters raised by the HHS assessor they engaged.
The guttering and the reattaching of parts of the underfloor insulation did not require inside access.
The landlord gave evidence that he arrived as notified (more than the required notice having been given) and began working on the garage guttering. One of the tenants then arrived home and said words to the effect ‘not today, not now. I have been up all night talking to my colleagues in the UK and need rest for my mental state’.
The tenant had previously stated that access would not be provided but no objectively reasonable reason was given. Access could have and should have been given to the exterior of the premises at least so the landlord could check the guttering and reattach the few areas of underfloor insulation that required reaffixing.
Given that the tenant claims the premises were so terribly deficient due to HHS non-compliance it is difficult to understand why they would not have allowed the landlord access to remedy the issues raised, especially when 2 of the issues only required access to the exterior of the premises.
I find that the tenant’s refusal was objectively unreasonably. The refusal to allow the landlord access properly notified was an unlawful act. It was an intentional act. It was against the landlord’s interests. It affected the landlord because the work had been planned. Non-compliance with statutory duties is against the public interest. For this unlawful act I award the landlord exemplary damages of $200.00. Has the landlord proved a claim for compensation for gardening/lawn costs?
As the tenancy remains live, the tenant has committed no breach of their statutory responsibilities yet. The tenant has until 17 August 2025 to comply with their statutory responsibility to leave the premises, including the lawns and gardens, reasonably tidy. The landlord’s claim for compensation is premature and is therefore dismissed. Result
The tenant’s application for a reduction of the term of the tenancy; a rent reduction; a refund of rent; reimbursement of the cost of the HHS assessment they obtained; and for compensation is dismissed.
The tenant will pay the landlord $6,624.00 comprising rent arrears of $6,396.00, exemplary damages of $200.00, and the filing fee of $28.00.
The bond will be paid to the landlord.
After the deduction of the bond, the tenant must pay the landlord $2,644.00.
The landlord’s application for exemplary damages for the tenant abandoning the tenancy and for failing to provide a forwarding address is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for gardening costs is dismissed. Name suppression
Both parties applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as their application is mostly successful. The tenant is not entitled to name suppression as their application is unsuccessful – see section 95A RTA.

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 5304845 — net $2,644.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 August 2025	$6,396.00	Rent arrears to 17 August 2025
Exemplary damages - failure to allow entry	$200.00	Exemplary damages - failure to allow entry
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,644.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,644.00

Claims and awards for application 5304845 — net $2,644.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 17 August 2025

Amount: $6,396.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 17 August 2025

Exemplary damages - failure to allow entry

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Exemplary damages - failure to allow entry

Filing fee reimbursement

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

Net award

Landlord $2,644.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $2,644.00

Dismissed claims

Healthy Homes Standards — Should the Tribunal reimburse the tenant the cost of the Healthy Homes assessment report they obtained?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages Filing Fee Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Louise Emma Urban and Rodney Gordon Urban must pay [The landlord/s] $2,644.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,980.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The landlord’s application for exemplary damages for abandonment of the tenancy by the tenant and for their failure to provide a forwarding address is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for gardening costs is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for a reduction of the term of the tenancy, a reduction of rent, a rent refund, and for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a reduction of the term of the fixed term tenancy, a reduction of rent, a rent refund, and compensation for various issues which I will detail later.
For convenience I will refer to the parties in the singular. Background
The tenancy started on 16 August 2024. It is a fixed term tenancy until 17 August 2025.
The tenant left the tenancy on 22 June 2025 without notifying the landlord. The tenant has moved to new premises and has stopped paying rent.
The tenant’s reason for abandoning the tenancy is due to a report they obtained which shows the premises are not compliant with the Health Homes Standards (HHS).
There has been a lot of communication between the parties by text and email. Both have provided documentary evidence and submissions.
I heard oral evidence from the parties today. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it.
I record here that both parties asked the Tribunal to deal with the bond by way of an order now. Issues
On the tenant’s application the issues to be determined are these: •Should the tenant be released from their fixed term tenancy? •Was the rent too high? Should the Tribunal refund $145.00 per week over 46 weeks, an amount of $6,670.00? •Should the Tribunal refund 2 weeks’ rent for the period when the tenant paid rent for this and their new tenancy? • Should the Tribunal reimburse the tenant the cost of the Healthy Homes assessment report they obtained? •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? •Can the tenant claim the cost of buying bottled water? •Can the tenant claim for pet-sitting 2 goldfish - $1,610.00? •Should the Tribunal award the tenant the cost of a pool for the goldfish they have left behind?
On the landlord’s application the issues to be determined are these: •Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears and for rent to the end of the fixed term tenancy? •Has the landlord proved claims for exemplary damages? •Has the landlord proved a claim for compensation for gardening/lawn costs? Relevant legal considerations Statutory provisions
Section 16 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out the requirements for notifying a change of name or address.
Section 25 RTA sets out the provisions that relate to a market rent review. On a fixed term tenancy, no application may be made later than 3 months after the tenancy commences or the date of the last rent review.
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
Section 48 RTA sets out a landlord’s right of entry. Section 48(2)(cb) RTA allows a landlord to enter to comply with the HHS with at least 24 hours’ notice between 8am and 7pm.
Section 48(4)(b) RTA provides that it is an unlawful act for a tenant not to allow the landlord to enter to comply or prepare to comply with the HHS.
Section 61 RTA sets out what happens when a tenant abandons a tenancy.
Section 66 RTA sets out what needs to be established before the Tribunal can reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy.
Section 109 RTA sets out what must be established before the Tribunal can award exemplary damages.
Schedule 1A RTA sets out the maximum amounts that can be awarded by way of exemplary damages. Compensation and exemplary damages
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.
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 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has intentionally 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.
In Birch, the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Discussion
First I will address the tenant’s application as it was the first application filed.

Should the tenant be released from their fixed term tenancy?

This is an application by the tenant for a reduction of the term of their tenancy.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A tenancy agreement is a contract between a landlord and a tenant. The Tribunal does not interfere with contracts lightly.
Here, the tenant’s reason for wanting to be released from the tenancy early is because the assessment they obtained showed some non-compliance with the HHS. The tenant says that affected their health.
I am satisfied from the evidence the landlord produced that the premises were assessed for HHS compliance before the tenancy began, and the defects notified in the assessment were rectified before the tenancy started.
The RTA does not require a landlord to have the premises professionally assessed. In this case the landlord had a builder undertake the assessment.
I am satisfied that at the start of the tenancy the premises were probably HHS compliant, possibly except for insulation above the laundry ceiling.
The assessment the tenant obtained showed 3 issues. Insulation over 2 access hatches (manholes) and in the roof cavity above the laundry was missing. The underfloor insulation needed some stapling to remedy some areas that had slipped. The ensuite bathroom louvre window and 2 small windows in the main bedroom allowed draughts.
These matters were not so significant that the Tribunal would consider the landlord to be in breach. They were essentially maintenance issues.
Premises that are assessed as HHS compliant can still require later work to keep that status. That does not mean the landlord has failed to comply; it simply means that repair and maintenance work can be needed over time.
The Tribunal has observed over time that reports from different assessors raise issues that other assessors do not. The lack of insulation over a manhole for example is a minor matter indeed.
The tenant said as the temperature dropped, her arthritis flared. She attributes that directly to the HHS failures identified by their assessor.
Yet, the assessment the tenant had done confirmed compliance with the heating standard.
The tenant produced a letter from her rheumatologist. The writer states that the tenant has a long history of juvenile inflammatory arthritis but has maintained a stable remission for a significant period. She said that the tenant’s flare-up coincided with ‘a drop in temperature and exposure to a cold and draughty house environment’.
The specialist can only relay what the tenant told her. As noted, there was no breach of the heating standard. The absent insulation affected a small area only, and it was only 2 small windows in the main bedroom and the louvre window in the ensuite bathroom that allowed draughts.
The photos produced in evidence show a large 5-bedroom, 3-living room house of a high standard. The minor HHS compliance issues were easily able to be remedied.
I do not find that the minor HHS lapses identified by the tenant’s assessor constituted an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances, bearing in mind that the tenancy started during winter the year before – 16 August 2024. The tenant’s symptoms of arthritis started suddenly on 2 April 2025, when the temperature dropped.
Without a proven unforeseen change in circumstances, the Tribunal cannot reduce the term of the fixed term tenancy. Nor need it assess the respective hardship of the parties.
The Tribunal finds it likely that the tenant left this tenancy for their own reasons, having earlier signalled a desire for the tenancy to end earlier. The tenant has seized on the HHS deficiencies which I have noted to be minor as a way of justifying their decision to leave. The landlord made them aware that they could leave the tenancy early but would remain liable for rent.
As the landlord put it, the tenant weaponised the HHS for their own benefit. The Tribunal largely agrees with that assessment. This part of the tenant’s application is dismissed. Was the rent too high? Should the Tribunal refund $145.00 per week over 46 weeks, an amount of $6,670.00?
The Tribunal does not interfere with rents. It has no general discretion to do so. The only way rent can be reduced is if the tenant applies for a market rent determination under section 25 RTA. An application under that section is strictly time-framed; it must be made no later than 3 months after the fixed term tenancy started or after the last rent review.
The rent for this tenancy has been $995.00 since it started on 16 August 2024. The application for a market rent determination is well out of time. This part of the application is dismissed. Should the Tribunal refund 2 weeks’ rent for the period when the tenant paid rent for this and their new tenancy?
There is no legal basis for the Tribunal to refund any rent to the tenant. Given my finding that the term of the tenancy cannot be reduced, the tenant’s rent liability remains until the tenancy ends on 17 August 2025. This part of the application is dismissed. Should the Tribunal reimburse the tenant the cost of the Healthy Homes assessment report they obtained?
The tenant obtained the HHS assessment report as evidence to support their decision to leave the tenancy and to establish a case to have the term of the tenancy reduced.
Each party bears the cost of producing their evidence. I make no order requiring the landlord to fund the cost of the tenant’s evidence. This part of the application is dismissed.

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation?

Compensation follows a breach by one party of their statutory responsibilities. Unlike exemplary damages it is not punitive. It simply recognises loss and compensates the loss.
The tenant has claimed for the cost of filling 2 gas bottles following a gas leak in the line to the kitchen ($118.00); drain cleaner to clear the insinkerator ($15.99); and compensation for time and fuel costs attending a heating shop to check whether the remote control for the gas fire was faulty ($200.00).
The tenant has not produced invoice evidence to support these claims. The landlord said the application was the first time he became aware of any request for compensation.
The correct process was for the tenant to ask the landlord to remedy any maintenance or repair issues and only if the landlord refused to then go ahead and do what was needed.
These claims have come out of the blue for the landlord. Without a reasonable request to the landlord that was not complied with, the Tribunal is not persuaded to award the tenant compensation. This claim is dismissed.

Can the tenant claim for the cost of buying bottled water?

The tenant claims that the water tasted like copper and was undrinkable forcing them to purchase water from the supermarket. They seek compensation of $1,227.60.
There is no evidence to establish that the water was unpotable or undrinkable or affected by copper. The landlord said he was unaware of any water issues until the tenant lodged the application. He said he had never experienced any issues with the water. This claim fails for lack of proof and is dismissed. Can the tenant claim for pet-sitting 2 goldfish - $1,610.00?
The tenant has claimed the cost of ‘pet-sitting’ the landlord’s 2 goldfish. - $5.00 per day for 322 days.
The landlord explained that he provided a guide for the tenant at the start of the tenancy with helpful information. The landlord asked the tenant to feed 2 goldfish with food provided. The tenant also had goldfish in another pond at the premises.
If the tenant was not willing to feed the fish, they could simply have declined to do so. They cannot reasonably expect to make this claim towards the end of the tenancy when there was no issue raised beforehand.
This claim is dismissed. Should the Tribunal award the tenant the cost of a pool for the goldfish they have left behind?
The tenancy remains live. The tenant can still take the pool for the goldfish from the premises. The landlord is not required to reimburse the cost of the purchase of the pool, claimed at $59.00. This part of the application is dismissed.
Now, I will address the landlord’s application. Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears and for rent to the end of the fixed term tenancy?
It follows from my decision not to reduce the term of the tenancy that the tenant remains liable for rent to the end of the tenancy. In other words, the tenancy remains live, even though the tenant has abandoned the tenancy. I find the amount of rent to 17 August 2025 proved by the production of rent records not challenged by the tenant as to quantum.
I have made the rent arrears order to 17 August 2025 because there is no probability that another tenancy will be in place for the remaining 10 days of this tenancy.

Has the landlord proved claims for exemplary damages?

The landlord sought exemplary damages for abandonment of the tenancy by the tenant.
While I as satisfied that the tenant abandoned the tenancy (left without notice not intending to return) I cannot award exemplary damages because section 66(5) provides that a tenant commits an unlawful act if, without reasonable excuse, he or she abandons the premises while the rent is in arrear.
When the tenant abandoned the tenancy, the rent was not in arrear. The arrears have accrued since (despite the tenant’s stated intention that they would pay rent to the end of the tenancy). And because of my finding that the term of the tenancy will not be reduced, the tenant is liable for rent until the tenancy ends. The landlord has not taken possession of the premises and considers the tenancy to remain in place. That is correct.
There has been no unlawful act by the tenant refusing to provide a forwarding address. Section 16 RTA refers to the change of name, contact address, or address for service during the tenancy. Since this tenancy remains live, the details contained in the tenancy agreement are considered to remain as recorded. That the tenant might reside elsewhere does not alter the status of this tenancy as a live tenancy; the address for service remains the tenancy address and the contact emails are the same.
I find proved a claim for exemplary damages for the tenant refusing the landlord access to remedy the matters raised by the HHS assessor they engaged.
The guttering and the reattaching of parts of the underfloor insulation did not require inside access.
The landlord gave evidence that he arrived as notified (more than the required notice having been given) and began working on the garage guttering. One of the tenants then arrived home and said words to the effect ‘not today, not now. I have been up all night talking to my colleagues in the UK and need rest for my mental state’.
The tenant had previously stated that access would not be provided but no objectively reasonable reason was given. Access could have and should have been given to the exterior of the premises at least so the landlord could check the guttering and reattach the few areas of underfloor insulation that required reaffixing.
Given that the tenant claims the premises were so terribly deficient due to HHS non-compliance it is difficult to understand why they would not have allowed the landlord access to remedy the issues raised, especially when 2 of the issues only required access to the exterior of the premises.
I find that the tenant’s refusal was objectively unreasonably. The refusal to allow the landlord access properly notified was an unlawful act. It was an intentional act. It was against the landlord’s interests. It affected the landlord because the work had been planned. Non-compliance with statutory duties is against the public interest. For this unlawful act I award the landlord exemplary damages of $200.00. Has the landlord proved a claim for compensation for gardening/lawn costs?
As the tenancy remains live, the tenant has committed no breach of their statutory responsibilities yet. The tenant has until 17 August 2025 to comply with their statutory responsibility to leave the premises, including the lawns and gardens, reasonably tidy. The landlord’s claim for compensation is premature and is therefore dismissed. Result
The tenant’s application for a reduction of the term of the tenancy; a rent reduction; a refund of rent; reimbursement of the cost of the HHS assessment they obtained; and for compensation is dismissed.
The tenant will pay the landlord $6,624.00 comprising rent arrears of $6,396.00, exemplary damages of $200.00, and the filing fee of $28.00.
The bond will be paid to the landlord.
After the deduction of the bond, the tenant must pay the landlord $2,644.00.
The landlord’s application for exemplary damages for the tenant abandoning the tenancy and for failing to provide a forwarding address is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for gardening costs is dismissed. Name suppression
Both parties applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as their application is mostly successful. The tenant is not entitled to name suppression as their application is unsuccessful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304845 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304845 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenant be released from their fixed term tenancy?

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation?

Can the tenant claim for the cost of buying bottled water?

Has the landlord proved claims for exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenant be released from their fixed term tenancy?

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation?

Can the tenant claim for the cost of buying bottled water?

Has the landlord proved claims for exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions