What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5308741 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] and [The party] must pay [The party] $1,679.33

How much money was awarded in case 5308741?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5308741?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5308741?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12725774-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5308741 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] and [The party] must pay [The party] $1,679.33

How much money was awarded in case 5308741?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5308741?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5308741?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12725774-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 30 Leys Crescent, Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5308741 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat 1, 30 Leys Crescent, Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5308741 — Healthy homes | TenantCheck

Order

[The party] and [The party] must pay [The party] $1,679.33 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,300.00 (5027274-009) to [The party] and [The party] immediately.

Reasons

DescriptionLandlordTenant Lampshade$40.00 Bathroom tile damage$300.00 Carpet damage$495.00 Pool table compensation$300.00 Rent (additional day)$92.82 Pot compensation$50.00 Exemplary damages: Healthy Homes Standards $2,400.00 Rent overpayment $557.15 Total award$1,277.82$2,957.15 Net award $1,679.33 Bond $1,300.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $1,679.33

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant.
Both parties appeared at the hearing in Auckland on 13 November 2025.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records the landlords as [The party] and [The party]. The sole tenant on the tenancy agreement is [The party], although the tenancy agreement is also signed by [The party]. The tenancy commenced on 20 February 2024.
The landlords live on the site under the tenancy, so they are neighbours of the tenant.
What is clear, is that the parties had a very good relationship early on in the tenancy, both as neighbours, and as landlord / tenant. But toward the end of the tenancy, that relationship had become strained. Ultimately, both parties have filed applications in the Tribunal that are the subject of this decision.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Lamp shades b. Bathroom floor damage c. Kitchen cabinet damage d. Carpet damage e. Damage to pool table f. Damage to driveway fence and deck g. Extra day of rent h. Missing pot. i. Exemplary damages for antisocial behaviour. j. Exemplary damages for non-payment of rent k. Exemplary damages for having pet l. Exemplary damages for subletting premises m. Exemplary damages for refusing entry.

TENANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the tenant confirmed his claims are as follows: a. Exemplary damages for breach of Healthy Homes Standards b. Exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment. c. Rent overpayment d. Bond release

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Compensation
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Exemplary damages
The Tribunal must consider claims for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
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 Act.

ANALYSIS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Claim 1 – Lamp shades

The landlords state that a lampshade was broken during the tenancy.
The tenant states that he is an electrician, and confirmed that the lampshade was broken when a friend changed the bulb, and the glass broke. The lampshade was brittle and broke accordingly. Analysis
I am not persuaded that this is a case of fair wear and tear. While I accept that items do become brittle with time, in this case the item that broke was glass, and that should not be expected to deteriorate over time as would plastic or similar. With due care a bulb should be able to be replaced without causing damage to glass.
The damage occurred during the tenancy, and was not fair wear and tear. I consider the most likely cause of this damage is careless damage. The tenant is liable for the damage to the lampshade to the sum of $40.00. Claim 2 – Bathroom floor damage
The landlord’s position is that there was extensive damage to the bathroom floor, which arose from the overflowing of water from the bath onto the floor. Further, the landlord refers to a cracked tile by the door, which the landlord submits was very strong, so likely to have been damaged by a force being applied to it. The landlord refers to a report from the plumber and tiler. The landlord seeks compensation for the replacement of the bathroom tiles.
The tenant said there was a spongy feeling with the floor in the bathroom, and he noticed that grout was coming out from between the tiles. There was later a crack to a tile by the door. The tenant states that bath has not been used during their tenancy, the shower is over the bath and that would be used. The tenant also states that during the tenancy the toilet overflow valve was leaking, and he had a plumber friend fix that. Analysis
The evidence is that the tiles covering the bathroom floor required replacement, because water had gotten under the tiles.
The landlord obtained an assessment from a plumber, who reported that: Attended site to investigate bathroom leak. Conducted a thorough inspection of all visible plumbing fixtures and connections, and found no active leaks. Based on our assessment, the water damage to the floor appears to be caused by water spilling over the edge of the bathtub. Additionally, there is no evidence of waterproofing beneath the tiles, which has likely contributed to the extent of the damage.
That is also consistent with what the tiler says in the quote: Note; as we inspected the job according to our view and our experience the water on the floor, which I believe splashed from bathtub and went to grout joint caused the tile to be loose.
The evidence from the tenants is that they did not use the bath (as a bath), but would use the shower above the bath. I have no reason not accept that. While the plumber and tiler have referred to water coming from the bath, they are not able to confirm whether the bath was used as a bath. However, it is very likely that some degree of water would go on the bathroom floor when using the shower (above the bath), that would be expected. For example when stepping out of the bath after showering, or splashes on the floor, that would not be unusual even with careful use.
Bathrooms are wet areas by their very nature. Bathroom surfaces must be sufficiently robust to withstand some moisture exposure. What is normally expected is that floors will have some degree of ability to withstand water.
In this case however, there was probably some gap or gaps in the floor which allowed water to get under the tiles, the tiler indicates the water got in a grout line / lines. The tenants would not be responsible for maintenance, such as ensuring the grout was in good order, that is a landlord’s responsibility. What had made things worse for the landlord is that there was no waterproofing under the tiles.
I am not persuaded that the landlord has proven that the tenant has caused damage to the tiled floor by misuse of the bathroom, to find that the tenants are liable to replace the whole of the tiled bathroom floor. However I do consider the tenants should contribute to the cost because I consider it likely that the floor tile that was cracked by the door, was damaged from careless or intentional damage. It is fair that the tenants pay a contribution to the tile replacement which was required in part because of the broken tile by the door. On balance, I consider an order $300.00 toward the replacement, for that broken tile, would be fair. Claim 3 – Kitchen cabinet damage
The landlord states that there was damage to a kitchen cabinet, where a door has been damaged. The landlord’s position is that the damage occurred from how the tenants would open the door, and from moisture.
The landlord is also concerned that the tenant did not tell the landlord about the damage.
The landlord states that after the damage was discovered, there was an agreement with the tenant that he would fix the door. The landlord provided the glue for that, but the repair did not work.
The tenant states that the kitchen cabinets were starting to delaminate, arising from sun and moisture. It was agreed that he would try to glue the cabinets, the landlord provided glue and he attempted a fix, but it did not work. The tenant does not consider this should be his cost, as this is maintenance.
I asked the landlord why this would not be maintenance. The landlord states that it was negligently damaged because of how the door was being opened. Analysis
The landlord has not proven that this damage is anything other than maintenance. I am not persuaded that it could be said that the tenant was negligent (or careless) in opening the door, with respect to how the tenant would open or close the door. Kitchen cabinet doors and drawers need to be reasonably robust, and it would be unlikely that cabinetry in decent order, would delaminate just because of how they were opened or closed.
The landlords also state that how the tenant fixed the cabinets was not adequate and contributed to the damage. The tenant seems to agree that he did not manage to fix the door, but to be fair, that is the risk the landlord took when agreeing to get the tenant to fix the cabinet. If the landlords wanted a guarantee as to the quality of workmanship, then they needed to instruct a commercial provider like a cabinet maker or builder to do that work.
But finding as I do that the landlord has not established that the damage is anything other than a maintenance issue, I find the tenant is not liable to pay for this repair. Claim 4 – Carpet damage
The landlord states that carpet was in a pristine state at the start of the tenancy, but there was a stain by the entrance by the fridge. However, the landlord states that there are extensive stains and burn marks to the carpet. The carpet was around 5-6 years old at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant states that there was a gap around the French Doors and that would allow water ingress. The tenant also considers that the carpet would be damaged from the sun. Otherwise the tenant states there were large marks on the carpet throughout the house when it was rented. The tenants state that they do not smoke, and dispute that they caused burns to the carpet. The tenants had the carpet commercially cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
The parties agree there was no pre-tenancy inspection report. Analysis
The landlord seeks compensation for cleaning costs and damage to the carpet at the end of the tenancy.
The photographs provided by the landlord do support that the carpet was damaged with burn marks or similar, as well as noticeable staining.
The tenant had the carpets commercially cleaned at the end of the tenancy. The invoice from the carpet cleaner confirms there was staining, where it records: Please note that the carpet is made of wool and appears to be aged. Due to the natural absorbent and delicate nature of wool fibres, some stains could not be fully removed despite our best efforts. We used appropriate methods to provide the safest and most effective clean possible under these conditions.
There was no dispute between the parties that the carpet was stained at the end of the tenancy, but the parties dispute whether that staining was caused during the tenancy, or if it was existing at the start of the tenancy.
While there is no pre-let inspection report, I consider it most likely that the carpet was stained during the tenancy for these reasons. a. I found the evidence from the landlords convincing, that other than a small stain near the door, the carpet was otherwise in good condition. b. The staining and damage shown in the photographs was noticeable and unlikely to have been missed when the tenancy started. c. The fact the tenants had the carpets cleaned at the end of the tenancy, tends toward an inference that the tenants considered there was a need for the cleaning. d. The landlord has presented some limited pre-let photographs, which do support that the carpet was in good condition.
I find therefore that the carpets were not reasonably clean when the premises were returned, and also likely carelessly damaged (the burns or similar damage).
The landlord has claimed $495.00 of compensation, and I find the tenant must be liable for that amount, considering the damage to the carpet, and its respective age. Claim 5 – Damage to pool table
The landlord states that an outdoor pool table was purchased a few years ago, and kept under the carport. The tenant was given use of that item. However the landlord states that the tenant would use this as a workbench, and paint has been spilt on the cloth.
The tenant agrees that paint was spilt on the pool table, and he offered to have that remedied, but Mr Creado said not to worry about it. The tenant’s view is that the pool table is old and that must be taken into account with working out what a reasonable level of compensation.
Following discussion, the parties have agreed that $300.00 compensation would be paid for this, which is ordered by consent. Claim 6 – Damage to driveway and fence
The landlords state there is a wooden feature down the driveway that was broken. The landlord provided these photographs:
The landlord further states that there is damage to the concrete wall that would require extensive repair.
The tenant states that the wall in question was damaged with a pizza delivery, but in any event he took responsibility for it and pushed the wood back in place. Otherwise the tenant considers this was an old structure, and this and other areas of the tenancy are in poor condition. Analysis
This claim is finely balanced. But I am not persuaded there is sufficient evidence to find the tenant liable for this damage, for these reasons. a. Firstly, there is limited evidence to show the tenant caused the full extent of the damage. The photographs do suggest that the wood that comprises the edging was reasonably old. But even if that were not the case, the tenant’s evidence is that he replaced the wood into its correct position so no further work was needed from the landlord. b. Secondly, I am not persuaded that this is not maintenance. I reach that view given what the landlord is claiming for the wall, in particular that a car has caused damage to a concrete retaining wall. If the wall was in reasonable condition, it is hard to understand how a car would have caused that damage, unless it was at the stage of its life cycle where repairs were needed.
While the tenant has seemingly accepted liability for the damage, I am not of the view that an order to pay compensation should be made, because I am not convinced that the landlord has sustained a loss in financial terms. Claim 7 – Extra day of rent
The landlord claims an extra day of rent because the tenant requested an extra day to move out.
The tenant agrees that one day of rent is owed, and the parties agreed I will order the tenant to pay $92.82. Claim 8 – Missing pot
The landlord states that there was a pot missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks $50.00.
The tenant confirmed the pot was taken by mistake. The tenant consents to an order of $50.00. Claim 9 – Exemplary damages for antisocial behaviour
The landlord states that there was anti-social behaviour with the tenants, such as arguing and stomping. The landlord refers to episodes where a tenant was exposing herself outside the premises. This was captured on security cameras, and the police needed to be called (at least on one occasion), given concerns for her. The landlords are critical that Mr Spinetto was not suitably looking after his partner.
The landlord also states that there was subletting at the end of the tenancy, and the people who moved into the tenancy were noisy and would come and go late at night.
Mr Spinetto confirmed the circumstances with his partner (which I will not set out further in this order). The tenant also confirmed that people did stay in the premises at the end of the tenancy. Analysis
As I explained to the parties at the hearing, it is deemed to be an unlawful act if a tenant (or someone on the premises with their consent) interferes with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of other landlord tenants or neighbours “in circumstances that amount to harassment of a tenant or a neighbour of the tenant”. In this case the landlords are also neighbours.
When I raised that the standard to establish this claim was one of harassment, the landlords seem to have accepted that this may not have been a case of harassment.
As I indicated at the hearing what has been described by the landlord likely was upsetting for them – but it is not harassment.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
What the landlords described in not harassment, as it is not delibrate conduct intending to upset them. Without finding there was harassment, I cannot make any order of exemplary damages, so this claim must be dismissed. Claim 10 – Exemplary damages for not paying rent
The landlord states that the tenant got behind in rent, and the landlord needed to follow up on this with the tenant to get the rent paid. The landlord states that at one point rent was not paid for 6 weeks.
The tenant accepts that he did fall behind with rent, and extended an apology to the landlords. Analysis
The landlords confirmed that an apology was sufficient, and they are happy to leave this matter here. Claim 11 – Exemplary damages for having a pet
The landlord states that there was a prohibition on having pets in the tenancy which the tenant has breached. Analysis
As I explained at the hearing, this claim cannot succeed because while it was a condition on the tenancy agreement not to have a pet, this is not deemed an unlawful act in the RTA. Exemplary damages can only be ordered for specific ‘unlawful acts’ and in the absence of an unlawful act being deemed for pets on premises, this claim cannot succeed. Claim 12 – Exemplary damages for subletting the premises
The landlord seeks exemplary damages for the tenant having someone else in the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord states that this has been disturbing for them, and the occupants have caused damage and disturbance. Police and ambulance attended.
The tenant said that he agreed to allow people to stay with them at the end of the tenancy, but they did not pay rent. The tenant says that he regrets allowing them into the tenancy, given the trouble they caused them and the neighbours. Analysis
I accept that the tenant allowed other people to stay in the tenancy with him at the end of the tenancy, but I find this is not subletting.
Subletting occurs when a tenant rents out a part of the premises. For example, if a tenant rented a house with a sleepout, and they rented the sleepout to another tenant, then they have ‘sublet’ the sleepout. When subletting occurs, the original tenant needs to part with possession of the part of the premises which have been sublet.
In this case, the tenant explained (which I accept), that: a. He continued to live in the premises – so he did not part with possession of it in whole or in part; and b. He did not charge the other occupiers rent.
This all points to the other people staying in the tenancy by way of a licence, which would be the legal way to refer to a visitor or guest.
Because I find the premises were not sublet, this claim cannot succeed. Claim 13 – Exemplary damages for failing to allow entry
The final claim from the landlord is that the tenant would not allow them in for inspections. The landlord notes that they cannot rectify issues unless they know about it.
The tenant disputes that he refused to allow the landlord’s entry to the premises. There had been occasions where he advised certain days may not be convenient, but otherwise he disputes refusing entry. The tenant says that on some occasions he said that the landlord could go in and view what they needed to view. Analysis
The RTA confirms that a landlord may give the tenant notice to enter the premises (section 48), that notice must be in writing. Section 48 confirms that it would then be an unlawful act for the tenant to unreasonably refuse to allow the landlord entry following notice.
In this case, the landlord has not presented any written notice of entry, which would be the starting point for proving any breach. Without a lawful notice being identified, then there cannot be an unreasonable refusal to allow entry.
My impression is that the parties had a reasonably informal approach to things, where the landlords would contact the tenant asking about going into the premises for various things, and the tenant would either agree, not agree or not reply.
Overall, I find the landlord has not identified a proper notice, from which a breach arose.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Claim 1 – Exemplary damages for breach of Healthy Homes Standards

The tenant claims a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) on a number of grounds, in particular: a. Failure to provide a compliant heater b. Extractor fan in bathroom not ducted to the outside c. Openable windows d. Open fireplace not blocked e. Draughts
The landlord refers to an HHS inspection report that he obtained.
In response, the landlord states that the tenant would have known that the extractor fan was not compliant and should have said something about it. But in relation to the inspection report from the Tenant: a. The landlord accepts there was no heat pump, but they did tell the tenant they had a good heater that they could provide to the tenant that the tenant could move around as needed. b. It is accepted that the extractor fan in the kitchen was not externally ducted, but it worked otherwise. c. In terms of the windows, these were repaired. The landlord states they were not informed of the issue. d. The fireplace was enclosed. e. In terms of draught’s the landlord states they did not know about these issues, the tenant did not raise.
The landlord considers that the tenant has filed this claim in a retaliatory way. Analysis
The tenant has claimed that the landlord has breached their obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the HHS. A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered as set out in Schedule 1A to the RTA, is $7,200.00.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024. Heating standard:
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
In this case, the landlord has not provided a qualifying heater. Unfortunately for the landlords, it is not a defence to say that the tenant knew there was no heater, or that they offered a very good alternate heater, or the tenant should have assisted with the heat pump installation. The requirement to meet the HHS sits with the landlords and the landlords alone. The landlords needed to ensure the premises complied within 90 days of the start of the tenancy, and the landlords has not achieved that. Ventilation standard:
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
As far as the window is concerned, I find there is no breach of the HHS with that; the window could not open because it needed maintenance, that is a different issue to not having a window with the necessary characteristics.
But I do accept that the kitchen extractor fan was not externally ducted, so that did not comply with the ventilation standard. Again it is not the tenant’s responsibility to tell the landlord of non-compliance; the obligation is on the landlords to comply. Draught Stopping Standard
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
I accept that there were excessive draughts based on the HHS assessment. I see no reason not to accept that.
The result is that I find a breach of three requirements of the HHS, that is a breach of the heating, ventilation and draught stopping standards.
Taking into account the matters set out in section 109 (recorded above) I consider: a. The breaches are likely intentional. The landlords must have known they had HHS obligations, because they are set out in the HHS section of the tenancy agreement, and the landlords signed that agreement. b. The effect for the tenant is that he lived in premises that were colder, draughtier, and moister than they should have been. c. There are strong interests for this tenant and tenants in general to live in warm, dry and healthy premises, which is also an interest for the public generally. d. I consider it would be just to make an order of exemplary damages in this case.
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered for an HHS breach is $7,200.00. In this case I consider an order of 1/3 rd of the maximum would be indicated, and therefore order exemplary damages of $2,400.00. Claim 2 – Exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant states that he has received multiple text messages from the landlord attacking the credibility of him and his partner, and the support that he provided to her.
The landlord disputes that they had text in the manner claimed by the tenant. Analysis
I have set out above the relevant law that applies for harassment. In this case, I find the tenant has not produced evidence of communications from the landlord that I could find to fall within the category of harassment. The result must be that this claim has not been established. Claim 5 – Rent overpayment
The tenant says that an overpayment of $557.15 was made.
The landlords agree with that, so it is ordered by consent.

Order

[The party] and [The party] must pay [The party] $1,679.33 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,300.00 (5027274-009) to [The party] and [The party] immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant.
Both parties appeared at the hearing in Auckland on 13 November 2025.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records the landlords as [The party] and [The party]. The sole tenant on the tenancy agreement is [The party], although the tenancy agreement is also signed by [The party]. The tenancy commenced on 20 February 2024.
The landlords live on the site under the tenancy, so they are neighbours of the tenant.
What is clear, is that the parties had a very good relationship early on in the tenancy, both as neighbours, and as landlord / tenant. But toward the end of the tenancy, that relationship had become strained. Ultimately, both parties have filed applications in the Tribunal that are the subject of this decision.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Lamp shades b. Bathroom floor damage c. Kitchen cabinet damage d. Carpet damage e. Damage to pool table f. Damage to driveway fence and deck g. Extra day of rent h. Missing pot. i. Exemplary damages for antisocial behaviour. j. Exemplary damages for non-payment of rent k. Exemplary damages for having pet l. Exemplary damages for subletting premises m. Exemplary damages for refusing entry.

TENANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the tenant confirmed his claims are as follows: a. Exemplary damages for breach of Healthy Homes Standards b. Exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment. c. Rent overpayment d. Bond release

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Compensation
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Exemplary damages
The Tribunal must consider claims for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
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 Act.

ANALYSIS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Claim 1 – Lamp shades

The landlords state that a lampshade was broken during the tenancy.
The tenant states that he is an electrician, and confirmed that the lampshade was broken when a friend changed the bulb, and the glass broke. The lampshade was brittle and broke accordingly. Analysis
I am not persuaded that this is a case of fair wear and tear. While I accept that items do become brittle with time, in this case the item that broke was glass, and that should not be expected to deteriorate over time as would plastic or similar. With due care a bulb should be able to be replaced without causing damage to glass.
The damage occurred during the tenancy, and was not fair wear and tear. I consider the most likely cause of this damage is careless damage. The tenant is liable for the damage to the lampshade to the sum of $40.00. Claim 2 – Bathroom floor damage
The landlord’s position is that there was extensive damage to the bathroom floor, which arose from the overflowing of water from the bath onto the floor. Further, the landlord refers to a cracked tile by the door, which the landlord submits was very strong, so likely to have been damaged by a force being applied to it. The landlord refers to a report from the plumber and tiler. The landlord seeks compensation for the replacement of the bathroom tiles.
The tenant said there was a spongy feeling with the floor in the bathroom, and he noticed that grout was coming out from between the tiles. There was later a crack to a tile by the door. The tenant states that bath has not been used during their tenancy, the shower is over the bath and that would be used. The tenant also states that during the tenancy the toilet overflow valve was leaking, and he had a plumber friend fix that. Analysis
The evidence is that the tiles covering the bathroom floor required replacement, because water had gotten under the tiles.
The landlord obtained an assessment from a plumber, who reported that: Attended site to investigate bathroom leak. Conducted a thorough inspection of all visible plumbing fixtures and connections, and found no active leaks. Based on our assessment, the water damage to the floor appears to be caused by water spilling over the edge of the bathtub. Additionally, there is no evidence of waterproofing beneath the tiles, which has likely contributed to the extent of the damage.
That is also consistent with what the tiler says in the quote: Note; as we inspected the job according to our view and our experience the water on the floor, which I believe splashed from bathtub and went to grout joint caused the tile to be loose.
The evidence from the tenants is that they did not use the bath (as a bath), but would use the shower above the bath. I have no reason not accept that. While the plumber and tiler have referred to water coming from the bath, they are not able to confirm whether the bath was used as a bath. However, it is very likely that some degree of water would go on the bathroom floor when using the shower (above the bath), that would be expected. For example when stepping out of the bath after showering, or splashes on the floor, that would not be unusual even with careful use.
Bathrooms are wet areas by their very nature. Bathroom surfaces must be sufficiently robust to withstand some moisture exposure. What is normally expected is that floors will have some degree of ability to withstand water.
In this case however, there was probably some gap or gaps in the floor which allowed water to get under the tiles, the tiler indicates the water got in a grout line / lines. The tenants would not be responsible for maintenance, such as ensuring the grout was in good order, that is a landlord’s responsibility. What had made things worse for the landlord is that there was no waterproofing under the tiles.
I am not persuaded that the landlord has proven that the tenant has caused damage to the tiled floor by misuse of the bathroom, to find that the tenants are liable to replace the whole of the tiled bathroom floor. However I do consider the tenants should contribute to the cost because I consider it likely that the floor tile that was cracked by the door, was damaged from careless or intentional damage. It is fair that the tenants pay a contribution to the tile replacement which was required in part because of the broken tile by the door. On balance, I consider an order $300.00 toward the replacement, for that broken tile, would be fair. Claim 3 – Kitchen cabinet damage
The landlord states that there was damage to a kitchen cabinet, where a door has been damaged. The landlord’s position is that the damage occurred from how the tenants would open the door, and from moisture.
The landlord is also concerned that the tenant did not tell the landlord about the damage.
The landlord states that after the damage was discovered, there was an agreement with the tenant that he would fix the door. The landlord provided the glue for that, but the repair did not work.
The tenant states that the kitchen cabinets were starting to delaminate, arising from sun and moisture. It was agreed that he would try to glue the cabinets, the landlord provided glue and he attempted a fix, but it did not work. The tenant does not consider this should be his cost, as this is maintenance.
I asked the landlord why this would not be maintenance. The landlord states that it was negligently damaged because of how the door was being opened. Analysis
The landlord has not proven that this damage is anything other than maintenance. I am not persuaded that it could be said that the tenant was negligent (or careless) in opening the door, with respect to how the tenant would open or close the door. Kitchen cabinet doors and drawers need to be reasonably robust, and it would be unlikely that cabinetry in decent order, would delaminate just because of how they were opened or closed.
The landlords also state that how the tenant fixed the cabinets was not adequate and contributed to the damage. The tenant seems to agree that he did not manage to fix the door, but to be fair, that is the risk the landlord took when agreeing to get the tenant to fix the cabinet. If the landlords wanted a guarantee as to the quality of workmanship, then they needed to instruct a commercial provider like a cabinet maker or builder to do that work.
But finding as I do that the landlord has not established that the damage is anything other than a maintenance issue, I find the tenant is not liable to pay for this repair. Claim 4 – Carpet damage
The landlord states that carpet was in a pristine state at the start of the tenancy, but there was a stain by the entrance by the fridge. However, the landlord states that there are extensive stains and burn marks to the carpet. The carpet was around 5-6 years old at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant states that there was a gap around the French Doors and that would allow water ingress. The tenant also considers that the carpet would be damaged from the sun. Otherwise the tenant states there were large marks on the carpet throughout the house when it was rented. The tenants state that they do not smoke, and dispute that they caused burns to the carpet. The tenants had the carpet commercially cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
The parties agree there was no pre-tenancy inspection report. Analysis
The landlord seeks compensation for cleaning costs and damage to the carpet at the end of the tenancy.
The photographs provided by the landlord do support that the carpet was damaged with burn marks or similar, as well as noticeable staining.
The tenant had the carpets commercially cleaned at the end of the tenancy. The invoice from the carpet cleaner confirms there was staining, where it records: Please note that the carpet is made of wool and appears to be aged. Due to the natural absorbent and delicate nature of wool fibres, some stains could not be fully removed despite our best efforts. We used appropriate methods to provide the safest and most effective clean possible under these conditions.
There was no dispute between the parties that the carpet was stained at the end of the tenancy, but the parties dispute whether that staining was caused during the tenancy, or if it was existing at the start of the tenancy.
While there is no pre-let inspection report, I consider it most likely that the carpet was stained during the tenancy for these reasons. a. I found the evidence from the landlords convincing, that other than a small stain near the door, the carpet was otherwise in good condition. b. The staining and damage shown in the photographs was noticeable and unlikely to have been missed when the tenancy started. c. The fact the tenants had the carpets cleaned at the end of the tenancy, tends toward an inference that the tenants considered there was a need for the cleaning. d. The landlord has presented some limited pre-let photographs, which do support that the carpet was in good condition.
I find therefore that the carpets were not reasonably clean when the premises were returned, and also likely carelessly damaged (the burns or similar damage).
The landlord has claimed $495.00 of compensation, and I find the tenant must be liable for that amount, considering the damage to the carpet, and its respective age. Claim 5 – Damage to pool table
The landlord states that an outdoor pool table was purchased a few years ago, and kept under the carport. The tenant was given use of that item. However the landlord states that the tenant would use this as a workbench, and paint has been spilt on the cloth.
The tenant agrees that paint was spilt on the pool table, and he offered to have that remedied, but Mr Creado said not to worry about it. The tenant’s view is that the pool table is old and that must be taken into account with working out what a reasonable level of compensation.
Following discussion, the parties have agreed that $300.00 compensation would be paid for this, which is ordered by consent. Claim 6 – Damage to driveway and fence
The landlords state there is a wooden feature down the driveway that was broken. The landlord provided these photographs:
The landlord further states that there is damage to the concrete wall that would require extensive repair.
The tenant states that the wall in question was damaged with a pizza delivery, but in any event he took responsibility for it and pushed the wood back in place. Otherwise the tenant considers this was an old structure, and this and other areas of the tenancy are in poor condition. Analysis
This claim is finely balanced. But I am not persuaded there is sufficient evidence to find the tenant liable for this damage, for these reasons. a. Firstly, there is limited evidence to show the tenant caused the full extent of the damage. The photographs do suggest that the wood that comprises the edging was reasonably old. But even if that were not the case, the tenant’s evidence is that he replaced the wood into its correct position so no further work was needed from the landlord. b. Secondly, I am not persuaded that this is not maintenance. I reach that view given what the landlord is claiming for the wall, in particular that a car has caused damage to a concrete retaining wall. If the wall was in reasonable condition, it is hard to understand how a car would have caused that damage, unless it was at the stage of its life cycle where repairs were needed.
While the tenant has seemingly accepted liability for the damage, I am not of the view that an order to pay compensation should be made, because I am not convinced that the landlord has sustained a loss in financial terms. Claim 7 – Extra day of rent
The landlord claims an extra day of rent because the tenant requested an extra day to move out.
The tenant agrees that one day of rent is owed, and the parties agreed I will order the tenant to pay $92.82. Claim 8 – Missing pot
The landlord states that there was a pot missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks $50.00.
The tenant confirmed the pot was taken by mistake. The tenant consents to an order of $50.00. Claim 9 – Exemplary damages for antisocial behaviour
The landlord states that there was anti-social behaviour with the tenants, such as arguing and stomping. The landlord refers to episodes where a tenant was exposing herself outside the premises. This was captured on security cameras, and the police needed to be called (at least on one occasion), given concerns for her. The landlords are critical that Mr Spinetto was not suitably looking after his partner.
The landlord also states that there was subletting at the end of the tenancy, and the people who moved into the tenancy were noisy and would come and go late at night.
Mr Spinetto confirmed the circumstances with his partner (which I will not set out further in this order). The tenant also confirmed that people did stay in the premises at the end of the tenancy. Analysis
As I explained to the parties at the hearing, it is deemed to be an unlawful act if a tenant (or someone on the premises with their consent) interferes with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of other landlord tenants or neighbours “in circumstances that amount to harassment of a tenant or a neighbour of the tenant”. In this case the landlords are also neighbours.
When I raised that the standard to establish this claim was one of harassment, the landlords seem to have accepted that this may not have been a case of harassment.
As I indicated at the hearing what has been described by the landlord likely was upsetting for them – but it is not harassment.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
What the landlords described in not harassment, as it is not delibrate conduct intending to upset them. Without finding there was harassment, I cannot make any order of exemplary damages, so this claim must be dismissed. Claim 10 – Exemplary damages for not paying rent
The landlord states that the tenant got behind in rent, and the landlord needed to follow up on this with the tenant to get the rent paid. The landlord states that at one point rent was not paid for 6 weeks.
The tenant accepts that he did fall behind with rent, and extended an apology to the landlords. Analysis
The landlords confirmed that an apology was sufficient, and they are happy to leave this matter here. Claim 11 – Exemplary damages for having a pet
The landlord states that there was a prohibition on having pets in the tenancy which the tenant has breached. Analysis
As I explained at the hearing, this claim cannot succeed because while it was a condition on the tenancy agreement not to have a pet, this is not deemed an unlawful act in the RTA. Exemplary damages can only be ordered for specific ‘unlawful acts’ and in the absence of an unlawful act being deemed for pets on premises, this claim cannot succeed. Claim 12 – Exemplary damages for subletting the premises
The landlord seeks exemplary damages for the tenant having someone else in the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord states that this has been disturbing for them, and the occupants have caused damage and disturbance. Police and ambulance attended.
The tenant said that he agreed to allow people to stay with them at the end of the tenancy, but they did not pay rent. The tenant says that he regrets allowing them into the tenancy, given the trouble they caused them and the neighbours. Analysis
I accept that the tenant allowed other people to stay in the tenancy with him at the end of the tenancy, but I find this is not subletting.
Subletting occurs when a tenant rents out a part of the premises. For example, if a tenant rented a house with a sleepout, and they rented the sleepout to another tenant, then they have ‘sublet’ the sleepout. When subletting occurs, the original tenant needs to part with possession of the part of the premises which have been sublet.
In this case, the tenant explained (which I accept), that: a. He continued to live in the premises – so he did not part with possession of it in whole or in part; and b. He did not charge the other occupiers rent.
This all points to the other people staying in the tenancy by way of a licence, which would be the legal way to refer to a visitor or guest.
Because I find the premises were not sublet, this claim cannot succeed. Claim 13 – Exemplary damages for failing to allow entry
The final claim from the landlord is that the tenant would not allow them in for inspections. The landlord notes that they cannot rectify issues unless they know about it.
The tenant disputes that he refused to allow the landlord’s entry to the premises. There had been occasions where he advised certain days may not be convenient, but otherwise he disputes refusing entry. The tenant says that on some occasions he said that the landlord could go in and view what they needed to view. Analysis
The RTA confirms that a landlord may give the tenant notice to enter the premises (section 48), that notice must be in writing. Section 48 confirms that it would then be an unlawful act for the tenant to unreasonably refuse to allow the landlord entry following notice.
In this case, the landlord has not presented any written notice of entry, which would be the starting point for proving any breach. Without a lawful notice being identified, then there cannot be an unreasonable refusal to allow entry.
My impression is that the parties had a reasonably informal approach to things, where the landlords would contact the tenant asking about going into the premises for various things, and the tenant would either agree, not agree or not reply.
Overall, I find the landlord has not identified a proper notice, from which a breach arose.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Claim 1 – Exemplary damages for breach of Healthy Homes Standards

The tenant claims a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) on a number of grounds, in particular: a. Failure to provide a compliant heater b. Extractor fan in bathroom not ducted to the outside c. Openable windows d. Open fireplace not blocked e. Draughts
The landlord refers to an HHS inspection report that he obtained.
In response, the landlord states that the tenant would have known that the extractor fan was not compliant and should have said something about it. But in relation to the inspection report from the Tenant: a. The landlord accepts there was no heat pump, but they did tell the tenant they had a good heater that they could provide to the tenant that the tenant could move around as needed. b. It is accepted that the extractor fan in the kitchen was not externally ducted, but it worked otherwise. c. In terms of the windows, these were repaired. The landlord states they were not informed of the issue. d. The fireplace was enclosed. e. In terms of draught’s the landlord states they did not know about these issues, the tenant did not raise.
The landlord considers that the tenant has filed this claim in a retaliatory way. Analysis
The tenant has claimed that the landlord has breached their obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the HHS. A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered as set out in Schedule 1A to the RTA, is $7,200.00.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024. Heating standard:
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
In this case, the landlord has not provided a qualifying heater. Unfortunately for the landlords, it is not a defence to say that the tenant knew there was no heater, or that they offered a very good alternate heater, or the tenant should have assisted with the heat pump installation. The requirement to meet the HHS sits with the landlords and the landlords alone. The landlords needed to ensure the premises complied within 90 days of the start of the tenancy, and the landlords has not achieved that. Ventilation standard:
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
As far as the window is concerned, I find there is no breach of the HHS with that; the window could not open because it needed maintenance, that is a different issue to not having a window with the necessary characteristics.
But I do accept that the kitchen extractor fan was not externally ducted, so that did not comply with the ventilation standard. Again it is not the tenant’s responsibility to tell the landlord of non-compliance; the obligation is on the landlords to comply. Draught Stopping Standard
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
I accept that there were excessive draughts based on the HHS assessment. I see no reason not to accept that.
The result is that I find a breach of three requirements of the HHS, that is a breach of the heating, ventilation and draught stopping standards.
Taking into account the matters set out in section 109 (recorded above) I consider: a. The breaches are likely intentional. The landlords must have known they had HHS obligations, because they are set out in the HHS section of the tenancy agreement, and the landlords signed that agreement. b. The effect for the tenant is that he lived in premises that were colder, draughtier, and moister than they should have been. c. There are strong interests for this tenant and tenants in general to live in warm, dry and healthy premises, which is also an interest for the public generally. d. I consider it would be just to make an order of exemplary damages in this case.
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered for an HHS breach is $7,200.00. In this case I consider an order of 1/3 rd of the maximum would be indicated, and therefore order exemplary damages of $2,400.00. Claim 2 – Exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant states that he has received multiple text messages from the landlord attacking the credibility of him and his partner, and the support that he provided to her.
The landlord disputes that they had text in the manner claimed by the tenant. Analysis
I have set out above the relevant law that applies for harassment. In this case, I find the tenant has not produced evidence of communications from the landlord that I could find to fall within the category of harassment. The result must be that this claim has not been established. Claim 5 – Rent overpayment
The tenant says that an overpayment of $557.15 was made.
The landlords agree with that, so it is ordered by consent.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5308741 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 1, 30 Leys Crescent, Remuera, Auckland 1050

Tenancy Tribunal case 5308741 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 1, 30 Leys Crescent, Remuera, Auckland 1050

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS