What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5309439 about?

The tribunal order states: Sanctum 2021 Limited Gary Mervyn Groves must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5309439?

Compensation: Bond Refund: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5309439?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Leaks, Exemplary damages, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5309439?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13165746-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5309439 about?

The tribunal order states: Sanctum 2021 Limited Gary Mervyn Groves must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5309439?

Compensation: Bond Refund: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5309439?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Leaks, Exemplary damages, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5309439?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13165746-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

23 Tirotai Crescent, Westmere, Auckland 1022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5309439 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5309439 — net $7,328.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Fail to maintain in reasonable condition: locks, rangehood, leaking pipes	$1,500.00	Fail to maintain in reasonable condition: locks, rangehood, leaking pipes
Compensation: Bond refund	$2,000.00	Bond refund
Exemplary damages: Fail to lodge bond	$750.00	Fail to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: No smoke alarms	$750.00	No smoke alarms
Compensation: Not reasonably clean at start of tenancy	$300.00	Not reasonably clean at start of tenancy
Exemplary damages: HHS heating and ventilation	$2,000.00	HHS heating and ventilation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,328.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,328.00

The tenant attended the hearing. The landlord did not attend the hearing.

A Case Conference for this application was held on 12 November 2025. Ms Carruthers attended. On the day before the hearing, the landlord requested an adjournment. I declined the request.

On 16 December 2025, notice of hearing was sent to the parties scheduling the hearing for 23 February 2026.

On Thursday 18 February 2026 the landlord requested an adjournment for the hearing due to illness of Mr Chang. No medical certificate or other medical information was provided prior to the hearing or up until the date of this Order, 25 February 2026. The hearing was held on 23 February 2026.

Ms Carruthers responded that she opposed the adjournment on the basis that Mr Chang is an employee of the landlord, and another employee could attend in his stead, and that the tenancy had ended more than nine months ago and the application was six months old.

I declined the request for an adjournment but said the request for an adjournment would be heard again when the application was called today. An email to this effect was sent to both parties at 8.10 am on the day of the hearing. The tenant confirmed receiving it at 8.12 am. The tenancy

The tenancy agreement was signed by Gary Groves on behalf of the landlord on 10 February 2023 and by [The tenant/s], B. Ahern, Callum Riddle, and J Lezcano on behalf of the tenants on 9 February 2023.

The tenancy agreement records the tenancy as being a fixed-term tenancy beginning on 11 February 2023 and ending on 11 May 2023.

The following text was included in the tenancy agreement. I note the final line has been omitted.

Correspondence between [The tenant/s] and a representative of the landlord, Jonathan Chang in May 2023 indicated the tenancy would be renewed with Ms Carruthers as the sole tenant and other occupants as flatmates. This eventuated.

The landlord gave the tenant lawful notice to end the tenancy, and the tenancy ended on 4 May 2025. Section 109 Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, time limitation

Section 109(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) is relevant to this claim as some of the claims for exemplary damages are “out of time”. The relevant part of the section states: (2)A landlord or a tenant may not apply under subsection (1) later than— (a)12 months after the termination of the tenancy in the case of— (i)an unlawful act to which section 19(2) refers; or (ii)a failure to keep records in respect of bonds that is an unlawful act to which section 30(2) refers; or (b)12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act in the case of any other unlawful act. Failure to lodge bond

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The tenant said the bond of $2,000.00 was paid in full prior to the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy. After the end of the tenancy in August 2025 the tenant called the Bond Centre and was told that no bond had been lodged. In February 2026 the tenant called the Bond Centre again and was told again that the bond had not been lodged.

I have no reason to doubt the tenant’s information on this claim. I find the claim proved.

I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.

A bond is money that belongs to the tenant. The landlord has provided no reason for committing the unlawful act. The tenants have now been without money that is theirs for nine and a half months. It is a considerable amount of money and time.

The bond must be refunded in full to the tenants.

I am satisfied that exemplary damages are warranted in this case. I consider a moderate amount is appropriate given the duration of the tenancy, and the amount of time since the end of the tenancy and the fact that there is no information before me that indicates the landlord has conducted other tenancies in the same way. Failure to maintain

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA.

Under section 45, a landlord must: a. provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy, and b. maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair during the tenancy, and c. comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.

Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The tenant said that at the start of the tenancy the premises had been vacant for seven months. The lawns were almost a metre high, the gardens were overgrown, the inside of the house was dirty and grimy, there were live fleas in the carpet, there was a wasp nest in the bathroom and an infestation of ants in the letterbox.

The tenant referred to the text which I have included at paragraph 8, and said that a landlord may not contract out of the RTA. This is correct. Despite saying that the tenant “accepts the property is its current condition” [sic], the landlord must still provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy as per the RTA s45.

The tenant said there was a discussion with Mr Chang via email correspondence about compensation for the cleaning that the tenants needed to undertake to get the premises to a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy. Initially a $200.00 deduction from one week’s rent was agreed in consideration for the tenants mowing the lawns and garden, and this was recorded in the Tenancy Agreement.

Further negotiations then continued when the state of the inside of the house became evident, but the tenant said Mr Chang said no further deductions from the rent was agreed. A text-message chain was produced that verified this.

I determine the landlord committed an unlawful act in not providing the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy.

Because the claim has been made more than 12 months after the commission of the breach, exemplary damages are not available to the tenant.

However I consider general damages are appropriate in this case and I make an award of $300.00 for a further six hours of the cleaning undertaken by the tenants at the start of the tenancy. Smoke alarms

The tenant said the premises had no smoke alarms. She also produced a letter dated 20/7/2025 from P Reinhold Electrical Ltd who did work on the electrics at the premises following a fault with the electrics. This letter also says there were no smoke alarms in the premises.

This claim is proved. This breach continued to the end of the tenancy and so is not caught by the time limitation of section 109 of the RTA. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.

Because of the safety aspects involved in having smoke alarms, the affordability of installing them, and the duration the tenancy was without them, I consider this breach serious and I make an award that I consider reflects this. Rangehood

The tenant said the rangehood in the kitchen was totally ineffective in extracting cooking smoke, steam or odours. Providing a mechanical extractor fan in a kitchen is required under the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).

The tenants said the rangehood was a very old model and maintaining it went beyond cleaning a filter as on modern units.

No action was taken by the landlord to service or assess the effectiveness of this extraction unit.

Whereas the landlord may not have been in breach of the HHS in that a mechanical extractor fan was provided in the kitchen, I accept the tenant’s evidence that the rangehood was ineffective and the landlord failed to maintain it during the tenancy.

This claim is proved. I consider exemplary damages are appropriate for this breach. Leaking pipes

The tenant said that in January 2025 she told the landlord about pipes under the house that she had discovered were leaking. The pipes were beneath the kitchen and were leaking at a steady drip or light stream directly onto the earth as there was no Ground Moisture Barrier. A large area of the dirt was wet.

The tenant told Mr Chang about this on 10 January 2025, 17 January 2025 and 20 January 2025. No action was taken by the landlord.

This claim is proved. I consider exemplary damages are appropriate for this breach. Circuit board

The tenant said that at the beginning of the tenancy an electrician attended the premises and pointed out that the circuit board was very old and was probably a fire hazard. Then on 16 September 2024 an electrician attended the premises to fix circuitry to sockets that was faulty. This electrician, P Reinhold Electrical Ltd provided a letter that in his opinion “the electrical system was in a unworthy condition” and was a fire hazard.

In my view, the letter from the electrician does not go far enough to prove that the electrical system was a fire hazard. To be satisfied of that I would want to see information from an independent source that points to specific issues such as the components used or the condition of the wires in some detail that have been identified as being a fire hazard.

I do not find this claim proved. Locks

A landlord must provide and maintain locks to ensure the premises are reasonably secure. See section 46(1) RTA.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 46(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant says that the premises had three exterior doors, a front door, a back door and a sliding door also at the back of the house. Keys were never provided for the rear door or the sliding door.

The premises had two bedrooms in the main house and a unit above an external garage in which two flatmates slept. A toilet and shower were also part of the outside unit. The outside unit did not have a kitchen. The couple who stayed in the outside unit used the kitchen in the main house by crossing the deck and entering via the back door. The alternative to entering via the back door would have been to go down off the deck, walk around the house and go in the front door. This was not considered reasonable by any of the tenants and so the back doors were left open for the couple to enter through.

The tenants raised the lack of keys in an email to the landlord on 23 February 2023 and then again on the phone soon after. The landlord never responded.

I am satisfied that providing a key to the back door was more than an optional extra. The back door and sliding door were used several times a day and at times could reasonably have been expected to be able to be locked for the security of the people in the main house, without this becoming an impediment to the couple in the unit.

This claim is proved. In not providing keys for the back door and the sliding door, the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

I consider the cumulative effect of this on the tenants over the course of a tenancy that lasted two years and three months to be significant. It caused a lack of security. I consider the landlord was taking shortcuts in maintaining the premises. I consider exemplary damages are warranted for this breach. Because the landlord was still committing this breach of the RTA at the end of the tenancy, it is not time barred by section 109 RTA. Breach of Healthy Homes standards

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating and ventilation standards.

Breaching these obligations are an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A). Heating

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/

The tenant said there was no compliant heating anywhere in the premises.

The tenant said there was a space-heater fireplace and at the start of the tenancy they organised a chimney cleaner to clean the chimney. However after inspecting the fireplace, the chimney cleaner declined to clean it as it was “too old and dangerous”.

The tenant passed this information onto Mr Chang. Nothing was done to remedy this breach for the duration of the tenancy and so the space heater was never able to be used.

This claim is proved. I determine the landlord has committed an unlawful act.

The tenants endured two winters in this house that did not comply with the heating standard. Living in a cold house is unpleasant and is no longer acceptable in New Zealand, hence New Zealand’s laws and the amount of media coverage given to this issue. Ventilation

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 mechanical extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.

The tenant says that neither of the bathrooms had mechanical extractor fans.

I have no reason to doubt the tenant’s information on this claim. I find this claim proved. The landlord has committed an unlawful act.

Breaches of the ventilation standard leads to more moisture in houses and colder houses as a result.

I consider exemplary damages are warranted for the two breaches of the HHS. I make an award based on the amount of time the landlord was in breach, the lack of effort by the landlord to address the issues and the effect of the breaches on the tenants.

Because Anne Carruthers has substantially succeeded with her claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5309439 — net $7,328.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Fail to maintain in reasonable condition: locks, rangehood, leaking pipes	$1,500.00	Fail to maintain in reasonable condition: locks, rangehood, leaking pipes
Compensation: Bond refund	$2,000.00	Bond refund
Exemplary damages: Fail to lodge bond	$750.00	Fail to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: No smoke alarms	$750.00	No smoke alarms
Compensation: Not reasonably clean at start of tenancy	$300.00	Not reasonably clean at start of tenancy
Exemplary damages: HHS heating and ventilation	$2,000.00	HHS heating and ventilation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,328.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,328.00