What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310927 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must have the pergola at the premises inspected by a registered

How much money was awarded in case 5310927?

Compensation: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $80.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310927?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310927?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14014915-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310927 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must have the pergola at the premises inspected by a registered

How much money was awarded in case 5310927?

Compensation: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $80.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310927?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310927?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14014915-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Foster Crescent, Snells Beach, Snells Beach 0920 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5310927 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

6 Foster Crescent, Snells Beach, Snells Beach 0920 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5310927 — Exemplary damages | 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 5310927. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for breach of HHS - moisture ingress and drainage	$300.00	Compensation for breach of HHS - moisture ingress and drainage
Exemplary damages for breaches of section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages for breaches of section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986
Compensation for breach of HHS - draught stopping	$276.00	Compensation for breach of HHS - draught stopping
Compensation for repair of the door lock	$80.00	Compensation for repair of the door lock

Claims and awards for application 5310927. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation for breach of HHS - moisture ingress and drainage

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Compensation for breach of HHS - moisture ingress and drainage

Exemplary damages for breaches of section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Exemplary damages for breaches of section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986

Compensation for breach of HHS - draught stopping

Amount: $276.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Compensation for breach of HHS - draught stopping

Compensation for repair of the door lock

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Compensation for repair of the door lock

Dismissed claims

Healthy Homes Standards — Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?
Property Damage — __________________________________________________________________________________ 53109275 Did the landlord fail to provide and/or maintain the premises is a…

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Property damage

Order

The landlord must have the pergola at the premises inspected by a registered builder and provide the tenant with a signed statement from that registered builder stating that the pergola is in satisfactory condition by 28 August 2026.
If the landlord fails to comply with Order 1 by 28 August 2026, the rent shall reduce by $30 per week from that date until the date the tenant is provided with a statement from a registered builder who has inspected the premises stating that the pergola is in satisfactory condition.
The tenant’s claim that the landlord breached section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to comply with the Healthy Homes Standard – draught stopping and the Healthy Homes Standard – moisture ingress and drainage are upheld.
The landlord mujst pay the tenant $2,156.00 immediately, calculated as set out below:
The tenant’s claims that the landlord breached: a. Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1996 in respect of the curtains, the garage, the driveway, the outside steps, the hot water supply, the grounds and the laundry; b. Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1996 by failing to comply with the Healthy Homes Standard – insulation; c. Section 45(1)(ca) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1996 by failing to provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water, are dismissed.

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. There have been three hearings of this matter. The first two hearings took place at North Shore District Court on 18 February 2026 and 29 May 2026. A further telephone hearing took place on 23 July 2026. The tenant and representatives of the landlord’s agent attended both hearings for the landlord.
At the start of the first hearing, the tenant was asked to list his claims. The following day, an Order was issued adjourning the hearing part-heard and issuing Case Management Directions. The Case Management Directions state: ... the tenant confirmed that his claims are that: a. The landlord has breached section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair in respect of: i.The pergola;vi.Curtains; ii.The garage. iii.The driveway; vii.Steps on the deck; viii.Roof leak; and iv.Hot water supply;ix.Grounds. i. Laundry; b. The landlord has breached section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA by failing to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. Specifically, the tenant says that the landlord has failed to comply with: i. HHS Standard - Insulation; ii. HHS - Draught Stopping; and iii. HHS Moisture ingress and drainage; c. The landlord has breached section 45(1)(c) of the RTA by failing to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises in respect of the driveway entrance; d. The landlord has breached section 45(1)(ca) of the RTA by failing to provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water; e. The landlord has breached section 45(1)(d) of the RTA by failing to compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises.
These are the only claims that have been determined in this Order. Relevant legal considerations:
The Tenancy Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations including that it is for the party bringing the application, in this case the tenant, to establish their claims on the “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities requires the applicant brining the claim to prove that what they are claiming is "more likely than not"). Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Did the landlord has breach section 45(1)(ca) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by failing to provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water?
The tenant said that the water tank was not in working order because the landlord had not had it tested and the tenant believed it had not been used for 3 years before the tenancy started.
The landlord has provided invoices showing that on or about 23 April 2026, the landlord had the water tank cleaned and on or about 20 May 2026, the landlord had a UV filter installed.
The landlord says the drinking water for the premises is a tap in the kitchen which supplies treated water from the town supply. The tenant says that that tap is for rinsing dishes. In any event, a tenant should be able to access drinking water from more than one source in the house.
There are two requirements that landlords must fulfil in respect of drinking water under the RTA, these are section 45(1)(ca) which requires landlords to provide for the adequate means of collection and storage of water and section 45(1)(c) which requires a landed to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment as they relate to the premises.
The question of what a landlord is required to do to ensure that the water was safe was discussed in detail in the recent District Court decision of Sutherland v Ericson [2025] NZDC 7526. The District Court confirmed that s39(1)(a) of the Health Act requires the provision of potable water. Potable was previously defined in the s69G of the Health Act 1956, but that provision was repealed and replaced by the Water Services Act 2021. The District Court considered an analysis of what potable meant from various sources and concluded that it is “(a) water that is safe to drink; and (b) complies with drinking water standards”.
The first limb of the definition of “potable water” is consistent with the ordinary and dictionary meanings of “potable.” The second limb refers to a new statutory definition of “drinking water standards” also inserted into the Health Act by the Water Services Act. The District Court further went on to say that as the landlord’s duty is a statutory one, it is not necessary for the tenant to give notice if the tenant considers that there has been a breach. It is incumbent on the landlord to ensure that the premises complies with all Health and Safety and Building Act requirements.
There is no statutory requirement for tank water to be filtered or treated in any way. There are recommendations about what a landlord or homeowner should do to make sure that the water supply is safe, such as cleaning gutters, cleaning tanks and installing filters, but these are not mandatory.
Neither party had the water at the property tested for pathogens, therefore there is no way of knowing one way of the other that the water was not potable (safe to drink). In the absence of any testing, or other corroborating or supporting evidence, I am not satisfied from the evidence provided that the water was unsafe to drink. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the landlord has breached section 45(1)(c) of RTA.
This claim is dismissed. Did the landlord fail to provide and/or maintain the premises is a reasonable state of repair?
Section 45(1)(b) of the RTA provides that a landlord must: ... provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; and
Section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the RTA provides that breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010, the District Court held: ... the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.
A landlord is also liable under section 45 of the RTA where it is aware of an issue otherwise than via notification from the tenant and where it ought reasonably to be aware.
As set out above, the tenant claims that the landlord breached section 45(1)(b) of the RTA in respect of: i.The pergola;vi.Curtains; ii.The garage. iii.The driveway; vii.Steps on the deck; viii.Roof leak; and iv.Hot water supply;ix.Grounds. i. Laundry;
The tenant confirmed at the second hearing, that the claims of roof leak related to the garage and the pergola and the claim for the driveway was that it was not compliant with council regulations. The garage:
The tenant says that the garage is not and, for the duration of the tenancy, has not been fit for purpose. The tenant has provided photographs and a video showing that the garage has a dirt floor, there are holes in the ceiling, gaps in the walls and the sides of the garage do not come all the way to the floor. The tenant says that due to these issues, he cannot use the garage.
The landlord says that the garage was not included in the advertisement for the premises and that when the tenant attended the viewings, he was told that the garage was not waterproof and provided on an “as is” basis. The landlord was advised that it no longer had a copy of the advertisement for the premises.
In the Tribunal decision of Butler v Willis TT Christchurch TT2230/01, 19 November 2001, the Adjudicator held: Having heard the evidence relating to this matter I am satisfied that the swimming pool was an integral part of the tenancy and that the tenants could rightly expect to have full use of it during the tenancy. In my view a landlord who lets a property with a swimming pool must, unless there is an agreement to the contrary, ensure that it is in useable condition, ... [Emphasis added.]
I consider the situation here is similar. Where a garage is let with a property, it must be in a useable condition unless there was an agreement to the contrary.
The landlord says that when the tenant viewed the premises, he was told that that the tenant would be welcome to make use of the garage, but it was not waterproof and came “as is”. The tenant denies that this conversation took place. The tenant says that he did not view the garage when he viewed the premises because there was another prospective tenant looking at it. The tenant said he had no reason to believe that the garage was not waterproof. The tenant further said that the inclusion of the garage was a determinative factor is him agreeing to rent the premises.
This is the tenant’s claim, and the tenant has the burden of proof. By a slim margin, I find that the tenant has failed to prove the claim. Given the extremely poor state of the garage, I consider it is more likely than not that during the viewing the agent did advise the tenant that the garage was not waterproof and provided on an “as is” basis. Having said that, the landlord had engaged professional agents. The agents could have and should have referenced the state of the garage in the tenancy agreement. This would have avoided considerable time and angst for both parties.
The claim that the landlord breached section 45(1) of the RTA by failing to maintain the garage is dismissed. The grounds:
The tenant says that the landlord has failed to provide and maintain the premises in respect of drainage on the grounds. He says that there is no drainage and water flows onto the premises from neighbouring properties.
The landlord says that the premises has obtained compliance certificate from the council.
This is the tenant’s claim, and the tenant has the burden of proof. The tenant is arguing that the grounds are non-compliant. However, he has not provided satisfactory evidence (i.,e. a report from a suitably qualified drainage contractor) or from the Council that the grounds do not comply with Council regulations.
This claim is dismissed. The curtains:
The tenant says that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises because it failed to provide curtains. The tenant says there are no curtains on the French doors which means that it is a waste of time to turn on the heater.
I accept that not having curtains in a premises will impact the effectiveness of heating. However, it is not a requirement (healthy homes or otherwise) for landlords to provide curtains.
There have been decisions of this Tribunal where a failure to provide curtains has been a breach of section 38 of the RTA. However, those cases involved people being able to see in windows and privacy being impacted. 1
The tenant’s claim that the landlord breached section 45(1)(b) of the RTA by failing to provide curtains is dismissed. The laundry:
The tenant says that the landlord breached section 45(1) of the RTA because they failed to supply him with a plug and because the power point is too far away.
During the first hearing the landlord said this was the first time they had heard that the tenant required a plug. The landlord provided the plug shortly after the hearing.
I am not satisfied that the landlord was aware that the tenant was missing a plug until the first hearing. This claim is dismissed.
The tenant has not satisfied me that the location of the power point in the laundry is a failure to comply with council regulations or otherwise a breach of the law. This claim is also dismissed. 1 See Tomlinson v Mittal (No 2) TT Auckland 08/5574/AK, 4 February 2009 as an example of a Tribunal case where the landlord was found to have breached a tenant’s right under section 38 of the RTA by providing curtains that where not sufficient to protect the tenant’s privacy. The pergola:
I have found that that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS – moisture ingress drainage standard in respect of the drainage on the pergola – see below.
The tenant also claims that the pergola leaked. On 24 July 2026, the Tribunal sent an email to the landlord asking for confirmation that the leaks in the pergola had been fixed. The information the landlord provided showed that repairs had been done in 2024.
However, these repairs predated the tenant’s most recent claims that the pergola is leaking. For this reason, I issue a works order that by 28 August 2026 the landlord is to provide the tenant with a statement from a registered builder that the pergola is in satisfactory condition. If a statement is not provided by 28 August 2026, then the rent is to reduce by $30.00 per week until such time as the report is provided.
This works order issued in accordance with section 78(1)(e) of the RTA allows the landlord sufficient time to arrange for a registered builder to inspect the premises and, if the required statement cannot be provided, carry out the necessary remedial work. The driveway:
The tenant says that the driveway is non-compliant. He says it is unsafe and extremely difficult for him to enter and exit. The tenant says the driveway is so dangerous that his friends will not drive into the driveway when they visit.
Mr Druce, General Manager of the landlord’s agent, attended the second hearing as a witness for the landlord. He confirmed that on 12 March 2026, he attended the premises. One of the issues he looked at was the was the driveway. Mr Druce sent an email to his colleague following the visit and wrote: The width of the driveway apron is 4.6m so well within the council requirements for a vehicle to enter from the street ...
The requirements for driveways are set out on Auckland Council’s website at: https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/en/building-and-consents/resource- consents/types-resource-consents/subdivision-of-property/driveways-access- standards.html.
This is the tenant’s claim, and the tenant has not satisfied me that the driveway is non-compliant with Council requirements.
This claim is dismissed. The steps:
The tenant says the steps at the outside of the premises are non-compliant with regulations and not safe. The tenant has not referred to specific breaches of regulations.
Mr Druce told the Tribunal that he believed the steps were safe.
This is the tenant’s claim, and the tenant has the burden of proof. The tenant has not satisfied me that the landlord has breached section 45(1) in respect of the steps either because they are non-compliant with relevant legislation or because they are in need of repair.
This claim is dismissed. Hot water supply:
The tenant said that the issue with the hot water supply is that the hot water is too hot. The landlord said they were only made aware of this issue during the second hearing and that they would arrange for a suitable person to adjust the temperature.
While I accept the tenant’s evidence that the water was not set at the right level, I do not accept that the landlord was aware of the issue. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For private rentals: a. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or b. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. c. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The tenancy started on 22 December 2023. The tenancy agreement was signed by the parties on 20 December 2023 (the “Tenancy Agreement”). It was initially a fixed term agreement with an end date of 23 December 2024. However, it became a periodic tenancy. The tenancy did not renew and there were no further tenancy agreements between the parties. Therefore, the landlord was required to comply with the premises on and from 20 April 2024.
The landlord signed off on the HHS statement in the tenancy agreement themselves. The agent says this was acceptable to them because of the landlord’s experience in the construction industry.
On 10 December 2025, the landlord obtained a Healthy Homes Report from All Clear (the “HHS Report”). The HHS Report found that the premises was non- compliant with the following standards:
HHS – moisture ingress and drainage. The HHS report states: Multiple drainage system failures have been identified around the property. ... (1. The rear of the property canopy spouting is missing and requires installation. 2. The left side of the property garage downpipe is disconnected from spouting).
HHS – draught stopping. The HHS Report states: Gaps of 3mm or more detected at the property. To prevent unnecessary draughts, these areas require remediation. This could be in the form of new seals or draught stoppers.
HHS insulation. The HHS Report states: The sub floor space has insulation installed that appears to be in reasonable conditions and meets the current standard for thickness but there are areas of displacement/missing insulation that require reinstating and installation. Evidence of Mr Paulo Alfarth:
Mr Paulo Alfarth, Head of Property Services for All Clear, attended the second hearing as a witness for the landlord. Mr Alfarth initially attended via telephone. However, as there was photographic evidence for him to review and this was proving difficult for him to do via to the telephone, he travelled to the Tribunal and attended in person.
Mr Alfarth clarified that he did not assess the premises or prepare the HHS Report. However, he said he had reviewed the report and was willing to provide evidence on that basis. His evidence is as follows: a. Mr Alfarth said that the reason the underfloor insulation did not comply was because there was one square metre of insulation that had moved. He said that this can occur due to wind and that the landlord was asked to move it back to the correct place. Mr Alfarth said this was a small adjustment. b. The landlord has provided an invoice of 15 December 2025 confirming that this concern has been fixed. Mr Alfarth said based on that invoice he believed the work had been done and the premises would now comply with the HHS – insulation standard. c. Mr Alfarth said that the downpipe on the left side of the garage had disconnected from the spouting was a minor issue and had disconnected overtime. In other words that it had been compliant, but became uncompliant when it disconnected. d. Mr Alfarth said that the landlord had made a specific area for drainage for the pergola which he believed was now compliant. He confirmed that until that drainage had been added the pergola did not comply with the HHS – moisture ingress and drainage. e. Mr Alfarth said the issues with the draught stopping referred to foam which was missing from the windows. Mr Alfarth said that because parts of the foam were missing it indicated to him that this issue had become non- compliant over time.
The tenant made it clear during the hearing that he did not agree with the findings in the HHS Report. The tenant asked a number of questions of Mr Alfarth including why, if the premises met the HHS, he could not heat the premises. The tenant referred to the glass doors and large windows inside the premises which were not double glazed. Mr Alfarth correctly identified that it is not an HHS requirement for windows or glass doors to be double glazed.
The tenant also provided photographs of the moisture ground cover as evidence that the moisture ingress standard was not met. Mr Alfarth reviewed the photographs and said he believed that the premises did meet the standard.

Did the landlord breach the HHS 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.
As set out above, the HHS Report provides that the HHS - draught stopping was not met. I find that it is more likely than not that the draught stopping standard was met at the compliance date, but this changed overtime. I am satisfied the issue with the draught stopping was remedied on or about 15 December 2025.
It was very difficult to ascertain from the parties when the landlord became aware of the issue. For this reason, I have relied on the documentation to determine the date when the landlord became aware or ought to have become aware of the draught stopping issue.
The tenant’s application to the Tribunal was submitted on 29 July 2025. The application refers to breaches of the HHS but did not specifically refer to breaches of HHS - draught stopping standard. I do not consider that the landlord was put on notice of the issue at that point.
Both parties agree that one of the landlords attended the premises on 14 October 2025 and one of the things she tried to fix during that visit was the draught issues. It is also agreed that the tenant asked the landlord to leave and, while the landlord had given notice to attend the premises, she had not advised the tenant that one of the reasons for her attendance was to fix the draught issues.
I find that by 14 October 2025 at the latest, the landlord was on notice that the tenant believed there were draught issues at the premises. At that point, the landlord should have investigated the issue and, if repairs were necessary, carried out the repairs.
The landlord says that the work was not remedied until 15 December 2025 because the tenant was not cooperative with the landlord’s efforts to have the work done.
The issue for the landlord with this defence, is that the landlord had not given proper notice to access the premises for the repairs. Section 48(2) of the RTA provides that: ... the landlord may enter the premises: ... (cb) for the purpose of complying, or preparing to comply, with the healthy homes standards (including any prospective requirements of those standards), at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry; or ...
If proper notice is served under section 48(1) of the RTA, the tenant must allow access. Section 48(4)(b) of the RTA provides that it is an unlawful act for the tenant to fail to allow access (without a reasonable excuse) where proper notice has been given under section 48(1) of the RTA.
Section 136 of the RTA sets out how a notice may be given. Broadly, the notice must be served on the tenant in one of the ways set out in section 136. This includes by sending it to an email address for service.
It is well established that a landlord cannot use a right to enter for certain repairs as an opportunity to carry out other repairs. 2 So, a notice of entry to carry out repairs is only valid for the repairs stated in the notice.
The landlord has failed to provide evidence that tenant was given notice that to inspect / repair the draught stopping issue that complied with section 48(2)(cb) of the RTA prior to the landlord’s visit on 14 October 2025. Therefore, the 2 See Tranter v Johnson TT Christchurch TT2854/96, 12 March 1997 at 3–4. tenant was within his rights to object to the landlord trying to carry out repairs to the draught stopping.
There is text message correspondence between the tenant and a contractor of the landlord’s where the contractor asked to “pop by” regarding the draught stopping tape and the tenant refuses. Again, the contractor’s text message did not amount to proper notice.
I find that the landlord did not issue proper notice to repair the draught issues. I consider that if the landlord had issued proper notice, the issue could have been remedied by 01 November 2026. I consider that the tenant should be compensated for living in a draughty premises that did not comply with the HHS draught stopping standard for a period of 6 weeks.
Six weeks’ rent is $2,760.00. I consider a reduction of 10% for loss of amenity to be appropriate in these circumstances. I award $276.00 as compensation for the landlord’s failure to remedy the draught issue within a reasonable period of time after being made aware of the issue. HHS - Moisture ingress and drainage – under floor:
I accept Mr Alfarth’s evidence that it is more likely than not the ground floor barrier was compliant at the start of the tenancy but overtime a small section of it shifted.
Again, it was very difficult to ascertain when the landlord could reasonably be expected to know that there was a minor issue with the ground floor barrier. I consider this is likely to have been at the first hearing. By that stage the issue had been remedied.
This claim is dismissed. HHS - Moisture ingress and drainage - pergola:
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
Prior to the first hearing the landlord had provided a letter explaining why the drainage attaching the pergola could not be installed. Unfortunately for the landlord, this is not an applicable exemption.
Following the issuing of the Healthy Homes Report on 10 December 2025 and prior to the second hearing, the drainage issue on the pergola was remedied.
The tenant’s claim that the landlord breached the HHS – moisture ingress and drainage is upheld in respect of the pergola.
Again, it was exceptionally difficult to establish when the tenant first raised the issue of breach of the HHS - moisture ingress and drainage. I find this occurred on the date of the claim to the Tribunal, 29 July 2025, at the latest. Had the landlord had a HHS prepared by a suitable assessor at that point the issue could have been remedied by late August 2025.
I accept that the landlord’s failure to address the tenant’s concerns regarding drainage caused the tenant distress. I award $300 in general compensation for this breach.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Failing to comply with the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1) of the RTA 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 of the RTA.)
Section 109 of the RTA provides 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 principle from the District Court decision of Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited (DC Wellington, CIV 2014-085-13, 27 August 2014) is that if there were multiple breaches of a particular section, then only one set of exemplary damages could be ordered for that breach.

Did the landlord commit the unlawful act intentionally?

The landlord of the premises did not attend the hearings. The agent attended on their behalf. It appears from the documentary evidence that the landlord was under the mistaken believe that because of difficulties associated with installing the drainage on the pergola and/or because the pergola did not require building consent, it did not need to comply with HHS – moisture ingress and draining.
Had the landlord obtained a Healthy Homes Report on the premises prior to the compliance date from a suitably qualified assessor, the issue with the pergola would have been identified. However, the landlord certified the premises as compliant themselves.
I accept this was not deliberate. I consider that the landlord, not being in the business of assessing premises for compliance with HHS, mistakenly believed that the HHS – moisture ingress and drainage standard was met.
However, it is well established that when determining if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. In T.M.T New Zealand Limited Trading as Strata Property Management v Kirk Liam Sweeney and Anne-mette Holmgard Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182, the landlord had failed to provide an insurance and healthy homes compliance statement as required under the RTA. The Court held that: The obligation to provide these documents are fundamental obligations on landlords of which it appears Mr Hu was not fully aware despite their being included in the Act since 2016 and 2019 respectively. Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequence for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.
The landlord’s defence for not investigating and remedying the concerns raised by the tenant that the premises did not comply with the HHS – draught stopping standard in a timely manner was that the tenant did not cooperate with their efforts to fix the issue. I have explained that as proper notice was not issued, this was not a defence.
The breaches of the HHS arose because of the landlord’s ignorance of the law. Therefore, I am satisfied that the unlawful acts were committed intentionally. Having regard to the landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the tenant, and the public interest, I consider it is just to make an award of exemplary damages. I award $1500 in exemplary damages for the breaches of section 45(1) of the RTA. Expenses claimed by the tenant:
The tenant’s claim for failing to reimburse expenses was for repairs to the door. The tenant has provided an invoice for rubbish bags, cockroach spray bombs and $80 to repair the lock on the rear door lock. The tenant says he wants the Tribunal to order reimbursement for the entire invoice.
The landlord said it is willing to pay the $80.00 but not the other sums. The landlord says the reason the other sums have not been paid is because the tenant did not respond to their request for additional information about the other sums on the invoice.
I order payment of $80 for repairs of the back door lock. I decline to consider the other claims as they were not raised by the tenant in the first hearing when the claims were listed. Filing fee:
While the tenant has had some success with the claim, I do not consider he has been substantially successful. For this reason, I have not ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

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 5310927. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for breach of HHS - moisture ingress and drainage	$300.00	Compensation for breach of HHS - moisture ingress and drainage
Exemplary damages for breaches of section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages for breaches of section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986
Compensation for breach of HHS - draught stopping	$276.00	Compensation for breach of HHS - draught stopping
Compensation for repair of the door lock	$80.00	Compensation for repair of the door lock

Claims and awards for application 5310927. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation for breach of HHS - moisture ingress and drainage

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Compensation for breach of HHS - moisture ingress and drainage

Exemplary damages for breaches of section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Exemplary damages for breaches of section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986

Compensation for breach of HHS - draught stopping

Amount: $276.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Compensation for breach of HHS - draught stopping

Compensation for repair of the door lock

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Compensation for repair of the door lock

Dismissed claims

Healthy Homes Standards — Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?
Property Damage — __________________________________________________________________________________ 53109275 Did the landlord fail to provide and/or maintain the premises is a…

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Exemplary damages Property damage

Order

The landlord must have the pergola at the premises inspected by a registered builder and provide the tenant with a signed statement from that registered builder stating that the pergola is in satisfactory condition by 28 August 2026.
If the landlord fails to comply with Order 1 by 28 August 2026, the rent shall reduce by $30 per week from that date until the date the tenant is provided with a statement from a registered builder who has inspected the premises stating that the pergola is in satisfactory condition.
The tenant’s claim that the landlord breached section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to comply with the Healthy Homes Standard – draught stopping and the Healthy Homes Standard – moisture ingress and drainage are upheld.
The landlord mujst pay the tenant $2,156.00 immediately, calculated as set out below:
The tenant’s claims that the landlord breached: a. Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1996 in respect of the curtains, the garage, the driveway, the outside steps, the hot water supply, the grounds and the laundry; b. Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1996 by failing to comply with the Healthy Homes Standard – insulation; c. Section 45(1)(ca) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1996 by failing to provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water, are dismissed.

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. There have been three hearings of this matter. The first two hearings took place at North Shore District Court on 18 February 2026 and 29 May 2026. A further telephone hearing took place on 23 July 2026. The tenant and representatives of the landlord’s agent attended both hearings for the landlord.
At the start of the first hearing, the tenant was asked to list his claims. The following day, an Order was issued adjourning the hearing part-heard and issuing Case Management Directions. The Case Management Directions state: ... the tenant confirmed that his claims are that: a. The landlord has breached section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair in respect of: i.The pergola;vi.Curtains; ii.The garage. iii.The driveway; vii.Steps on the deck; viii.Roof leak; and iv.Hot water supply;ix.Grounds. i. Laundry; b. The landlord has breached section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA by failing to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. Specifically, the tenant says that the landlord has failed to comply with: i. HHS Standard - Insulation; ii. HHS - Draught Stopping; and iii. HHS Moisture ingress and drainage; c. The landlord has breached section 45(1)(c) of the RTA by failing to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises in respect of the driveway entrance; d. The landlord has breached section 45(1)(ca) of the RTA by failing to provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water; e. The landlord has breached section 45(1)(d) of the RTA by failing to compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises.
These are the only claims that have been determined in this Order. Relevant legal considerations:
The Tenancy Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations including that it is for the party bringing the application, in this case the tenant, to establish their claims on the “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities requires the applicant brining the claim to prove that what they are claiming is "more likely than not"). Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Did the landlord has breach section 45(1)(ca) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by failing to provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water?
The tenant said that the water tank was not in working order because the landlord had not had it tested and the tenant believed it had not been used for 3 years before the tenancy started.
The landlord has provided invoices showing that on or about 23 April 2026, the landlord had the water tank cleaned and on or about 20 May 2026, the landlord had a UV filter installed.
The landlord says the drinking water for the premises is a tap in the kitchen which supplies treated water from the town supply. The tenant says that that tap is for rinsing dishes. In any event, a tenant should be able to access drinking water from more than one source in the house.
There are two requirements that landlords must fulfil in respect of drinking water under the RTA, these are section 45(1)(ca) which requires landlords to provide for the adequate means of collection and storage of water and section 45(1)(c) which requires a landed to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment as they relate to the premises.
The question of what a landlord is required to do to ensure that the water was safe was discussed in detail in the recent District Court decision of Sutherland v Ericson [2025] NZDC 7526. The District Court confirmed that s39(1)(a) of the Health Act requires the provision of potable water. Potable was previously defined in the s69G of the Health Act 1956, but that provision was repealed and replaced by the Water Services Act 2021. The District Court considered an analysis of what potable meant from various sources and concluded that it is “(a) water that is safe to drink; and (b) complies with drinking water standards”.
The first limb of the definition of “potable water” is consistent with the ordinary and dictionary meanings of “potable.” The second limb refers to a new statutory definition of “drinking water standards” also inserted into the Health Act by the Water Services Act. The District Court further went on to say that as the landlord’s duty is a statutory one, it is not necessary for the tenant to give notice if the tenant considers that there has been a breach. It is incumbent on the landlord to ensure that the premises complies with all Health and Safety and Building Act requirements.
There is no statutory requirement for tank water to be filtered or treated in any way. There are recommendations about what a landlord or homeowner should do to make sure that the water supply is safe, such as cleaning gutters, cleaning tanks and installing filters, but these are not mandatory.
Neither party had the water at the property tested for pathogens, therefore there is no way of knowing one way of the other that the water was not potable (safe to drink). In the absence of any testing, or other corroborating or supporting evidence, I am not satisfied from the evidence provided that the water was unsafe to drink. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the landlord has breached section 45(1)(c) of RTA.
This claim is dismissed. Did the landlord fail to provide and/or maintain the premises is a reasonable state of repair?
Section 45(1)(b) of the RTA provides that a landlord must: ... provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; and
Section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the RTA provides that breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010, the District Court held: ... the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.
A landlord is also liable under section 45 of the RTA where it is aware of an issue otherwise than via notification from the tenant and where it ought reasonably to be aware.
As set out above, the tenant claims that the landlord breached section 45(1)(b) of the RTA in respect of: i.The pergola;vi.Curtains; ii.The garage. iii.The driveway; vii.Steps on the deck; viii.Roof leak; and iv.Hot water supply;ix.Grounds. i. Laundry;
The tenant confirmed at the second hearing, that the claims of roof leak related to the garage and the pergola and the claim for the driveway was that it was not compliant with council regulations. The garage:
The tenant says that the garage is not and, for the duration of the tenancy, has not been fit for purpose. The tenant has provided photographs and a video showing that the garage has a dirt floor, there are holes in the ceiling, gaps in the walls and the sides of the garage do not come all the way to the floor. The tenant says that due to these issues, he cannot use the garage.
The landlord says that the garage was not included in the advertisement for the premises and that when the tenant attended the viewings, he was told that the garage was not waterproof and provided on an “as is” basis. The landlord was advised that it no longer had a copy of the advertisement for the premises.
In the Tribunal decision of Butler v Willis TT Christchurch TT2230/01, 19 November 2001, the Adjudicator held: Having heard the evidence relating to this matter I am satisfied that the swimming pool was an integral part of the tenancy and that the tenants could rightly expect to have full use of it during the tenancy. In my view a landlord who lets a property with a swimming pool must, unless there is an agreement to the contrary, ensure that it is in useable condition, ... [Emphasis added.]
I consider the situation here is similar. Where a garage is let with a property, it must be in a useable condition unless there was an agreement to the contrary.
The landlord says that when the tenant viewed the premises, he was told that that the tenant would be welcome to make use of the garage, but it was not waterproof and came “as is”. The tenant denies that this conversation took place. The tenant says that he did not view the garage when he viewed the premises because there was another prospective tenant looking at it. The tenant said he had no reason to believe that the garage was not waterproof. The tenant further said that the inclusion of the garage was a determinative factor is him agreeing to rent the premises.
This is the tenant’s claim, and the tenant has the burden of proof. By a slim margin, I find that the tenant has failed to prove the claim. Given the extremely poor state of the garage, I consider it is more likely than not that during the viewing the agent did advise the tenant that the garage was not waterproof and provided on an “as is” basis. Having said that, the landlord had engaged professional agents. The agents could have and should have referenced the state of the garage in the tenancy agreement. This would have avoided considerable time and angst for both parties.
The claim that the landlord breached section 45(1) of the RTA by failing to maintain the garage is dismissed. The grounds:
The tenant says that the landlord has failed to provide and maintain the premises in respect of drainage on the grounds. He says that there is no drainage and water flows onto the premises from neighbouring properties.
The landlord says that the premises has obtained compliance certificate from the council.
This is the tenant’s claim, and the tenant has the burden of proof. The tenant is arguing that the grounds are non-compliant. However, he has not provided satisfactory evidence (i.,e. a report from a suitably qualified drainage contractor) or from the Council that the grounds do not comply with Council regulations.
This claim is dismissed. The curtains:
The tenant says that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises because it failed to provide curtains. The tenant says there are no curtains on the French doors which means that it is a waste of time to turn on the heater.
I accept that not having curtains in a premises will impact the effectiveness of heating. However, it is not a requirement (healthy homes or otherwise) for landlords to provide curtains.
There have been decisions of this Tribunal where a failure to provide curtains has been a breach of section 38 of the RTA. However, those cases involved people being able to see in windows and privacy being impacted. 1
The tenant’s claim that the landlord breached section 45(1)(b) of the RTA by failing to provide curtains is dismissed. The laundry:
The tenant says that the landlord breached section 45(1) of the RTA because they failed to supply him with a plug and because the power point is too far away.
During the first hearing the landlord said this was the first time they had heard that the tenant required a plug. The landlord provided the plug shortly after the hearing.
I am not satisfied that the landlord was aware that the tenant was missing a plug until the first hearing. This claim is dismissed.
The tenant has not satisfied me that the location of the power point in the laundry is a failure to comply with council regulations or otherwise a breach of the law. This claim is also dismissed. 1 See Tomlinson v Mittal (No 2) TT Auckland 08/5574/AK, 4 February 2009 as an example of a Tribunal case where the landlord was found to have breached a tenant’s right under section 38 of the RTA by providing curtains that where not sufficient to protect the tenant’s privacy. The pergola:
I have found that that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS – moisture ingress drainage standard in respect of the drainage on the pergola – see below.
The tenant also claims that the pergola leaked. On 24 July 2026, the Tribunal sent an email to the landlord asking for confirmation that the leaks in the pergola had been fixed. The information the landlord provided showed that repairs had been done in 2024.
However, these repairs predated the tenant’s most recent claims that the pergola is leaking. For this reason, I issue a works order that by 28 August 2026 the landlord is to provide the tenant with a statement from a registered builder that the pergola is in satisfactory condition. If a statement is not provided by 28 August 2026, then the rent is to reduce by $30.00 per week until such time as the report is provided.
This works order issued in accordance with section 78(1)(e) of the RTA allows the landlord sufficient time to arrange for a registered builder to inspect the premises and, if the required statement cannot be provided, carry out the necessary remedial work. The driveway:
The tenant says that the driveway is non-compliant. He says it is unsafe and extremely difficult for him to enter and exit. The tenant says the driveway is so dangerous that his friends will not drive into the driveway when they visit.
Mr Druce, General Manager of the landlord’s agent, attended the second hearing as a witness for the landlord. He confirmed that on 12 March 2026, he attended the premises. One of the issues he looked at was the was the driveway. Mr Druce sent an email to his colleague following the visit and wrote: The width of the driveway apron is 4.6m so well within the council requirements for a vehicle to enter from the street ...
The requirements for driveways are set out on Auckland Council’s website at: https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/en/building-and-consents/resource- consents/types-resource-consents/subdivision-of-property/driveways-access- standards.html.
This is the tenant’s claim, and the tenant has not satisfied me that the driveway is non-compliant with Council requirements.
This claim is dismissed. The steps:
The tenant says the steps at the outside of the premises are non-compliant with regulations and not safe. The tenant has not referred to specific breaches of regulations.
Mr Druce told the Tribunal that he believed the steps were safe.
This is the tenant’s claim, and the tenant has the burden of proof. The tenant has not satisfied me that the landlord has breached section 45(1) in respect of the steps either because they are non-compliant with relevant legislation or because they are in need of repair.
This claim is dismissed. Hot water supply:
The tenant said that the issue with the hot water supply is that the hot water is too hot. The landlord said they were only made aware of this issue during the second hearing and that they would arrange for a suitable person to adjust the temperature.
While I accept the tenant’s evidence that the water was not set at the right level, I do not accept that the landlord was aware of the issue. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For private rentals: a. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or b. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. c. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The tenancy started on 22 December 2023. The tenancy agreement was signed by the parties on 20 December 2023 (the “Tenancy Agreement”). It was initially a fixed term agreement with an end date of 23 December 2024. However, it became a periodic tenancy. The tenancy did not renew and there were no further tenancy agreements between the parties. Therefore, the landlord was required to comply with the premises on and from 20 April 2024.
The landlord signed off on the HHS statement in the tenancy agreement themselves. The agent says this was acceptable to them because of the landlord’s experience in the construction industry.
On 10 December 2025, the landlord obtained a Healthy Homes Report from All Clear (the “HHS Report”). The HHS Report found that the premises was non- compliant with the following standards:
HHS – moisture ingress and drainage. The HHS report states: Multiple drainage system failures have been identified around the property. ... (1. The rear of the property canopy spouting is missing and requires installation. 2. The left side of the property garage downpipe is disconnected from spouting).
HHS – draught stopping. The HHS Report states: Gaps of 3mm or more detected at the property. To prevent unnecessary draughts, these areas require remediation. This could be in the form of new seals or draught stoppers.
HHS insulation. The HHS Report states: The sub floor space has insulation installed that appears to be in reasonable conditions and meets the current standard for thickness but there are areas of displacement/missing insulation that require reinstating and installation. Evidence of Mr Paulo Alfarth:
Mr Paulo Alfarth, Head of Property Services for All Clear, attended the second hearing as a witness for the landlord. Mr Alfarth initially attended via telephone. However, as there was photographic evidence for him to review and this was proving difficult for him to do via to the telephone, he travelled to the Tribunal and attended in person.
Mr Alfarth clarified that he did not assess the premises or prepare the HHS Report. However, he said he had reviewed the report and was willing to provide evidence on that basis. His evidence is as follows: a. Mr Alfarth said that the reason the underfloor insulation did not comply was because there was one square metre of insulation that had moved. He said that this can occur due to wind and that the landlord was asked to move it back to the correct place. Mr Alfarth said this was a small adjustment. b. The landlord has provided an invoice of 15 December 2025 confirming that this concern has been fixed. Mr Alfarth said based on that invoice he believed the work had been done and the premises would now comply with the HHS – insulation standard. c. Mr Alfarth said that the downpipe on the left side of the garage had disconnected from the spouting was a minor issue and had disconnected overtime. In other words that it had been compliant, but became uncompliant when it disconnected. d. Mr Alfarth said that the landlord had made a specific area for drainage for the pergola which he believed was now compliant. He confirmed that until that drainage had been added the pergola did not comply with the HHS – moisture ingress and drainage. e. Mr Alfarth said the issues with the draught stopping referred to foam which was missing from the windows. Mr Alfarth said that because parts of the foam were missing it indicated to him that this issue had become non- compliant over time.
The tenant made it clear during the hearing that he did not agree with the findings in the HHS Report. The tenant asked a number of questions of Mr Alfarth including why, if the premises met the HHS, he could not heat the premises. The tenant referred to the glass doors and large windows inside the premises which were not double glazed. Mr Alfarth correctly identified that it is not an HHS requirement for windows or glass doors to be double glazed.
The tenant also provided photographs of the moisture ground cover as evidence that the moisture ingress standard was not met. Mr Alfarth reviewed the photographs and said he believed that the premises did meet the standard.

Did the landlord breach the HHS 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.
As set out above, the HHS Report provides that the HHS - draught stopping was not met. I find that it is more likely than not that the draught stopping standard was met at the compliance date, but this changed overtime. I am satisfied the issue with the draught stopping was remedied on or about 15 December 2025.
It was very difficult to ascertain from the parties when the landlord became aware of the issue. For this reason, I have relied on the documentation to determine the date when the landlord became aware or ought to have become aware of the draught stopping issue.
The tenant’s application to the Tribunal was submitted on 29 July 2025. The application refers to breaches of the HHS but did not specifically refer to breaches of HHS - draught stopping standard. I do not consider that the landlord was put on notice of the issue at that point.
Both parties agree that one of the landlords attended the premises on 14 October 2025 and one of the things she tried to fix during that visit was the draught issues. It is also agreed that the tenant asked the landlord to leave and, while the landlord had given notice to attend the premises, she had not advised the tenant that one of the reasons for her attendance was to fix the draught issues.
I find that by 14 October 2025 at the latest, the landlord was on notice that the tenant believed there were draught issues at the premises. At that point, the landlord should have investigated the issue and, if repairs were necessary, carried out the repairs.
The landlord says that the work was not remedied until 15 December 2025 because the tenant was not cooperative with the landlord’s efforts to have the work done.
The issue for the landlord with this defence, is that the landlord had not given proper notice to access the premises for the repairs. Section 48(2) of the RTA provides that: ... the landlord may enter the premises: ... (cb) for the purpose of complying, or preparing to comply, with the healthy homes standards (including any prospective requirements of those standards), at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry; or ...
If proper notice is served under section 48(1) of the RTA, the tenant must allow access. Section 48(4)(b) of the RTA provides that it is an unlawful act for the tenant to fail to allow access (without a reasonable excuse) where proper notice has been given under section 48(1) of the RTA.
Section 136 of the RTA sets out how a notice may be given. Broadly, the notice must be served on the tenant in one of the ways set out in section 136. This includes by sending it to an email address for service.
It is well established that a landlord cannot use a right to enter for certain repairs as an opportunity to carry out other repairs. 2 So, a notice of entry to carry out repairs is only valid for the repairs stated in the notice.
The landlord has failed to provide evidence that tenant was given notice that to inspect / repair the draught stopping issue that complied with section 48(2)(cb) of the RTA prior to the landlord’s visit on 14 October 2025. Therefore, the 2 See Tranter v Johnson TT Christchurch TT2854/96, 12 March 1997 at 3–4. tenant was within his rights to object to the landlord trying to carry out repairs to the draught stopping.
There is text message correspondence between the tenant and a contractor of the landlord’s where the contractor asked to “pop by” regarding the draught stopping tape and the tenant refuses. Again, the contractor’s text message did not amount to proper notice.
I find that the landlord did not issue proper notice to repair the draught issues. I consider that if the landlord had issued proper notice, the issue could have been remedied by 01 November 2026. I consider that the tenant should be compensated for living in a draughty premises that did not comply with the HHS draught stopping standard for a period of 6 weeks.
Six weeks’ rent is $2,760.00. I consider a reduction of 10% for loss of amenity to be appropriate in these circumstances. I award $276.00 as compensation for the landlord’s failure to remedy the draught issue within a reasonable period of time after being made aware of the issue. HHS - Moisture ingress and drainage – under floor:
I accept Mr Alfarth’s evidence that it is more likely than not the ground floor barrier was compliant at the start of the tenancy but overtime a small section of it shifted.
Again, it was very difficult to ascertain when the landlord could reasonably be expected to know that there was a minor issue with the ground floor barrier. I consider this is likely to have been at the first hearing. By that stage the issue had been remedied.
This claim is dismissed. HHS - Moisture ingress and drainage - pergola:
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
Prior to the first hearing the landlord had provided a letter explaining why the drainage attaching the pergola could not be installed. Unfortunately for the landlord, this is not an applicable exemption.
Following the issuing of the Healthy Homes Report on 10 December 2025 and prior to the second hearing, the drainage issue on the pergola was remedied.
The tenant’s claim that the landlord breached the HHS – moisture ingress and drainage is upheld in respect of the pergola.
Again, it was exceptionally difficult to establish when the tenant first raised the issue of breach of the HHS - moisture ingress and drainage. I find this occurred on the date of the claim to the Tribunal, 29 July 2025, at the latest. Had the landlord had a HHS prepared by a suitable assessor at that point the issue could have been remedied by late August 2025.
I accept that the landlord’s failure to address the tenant’s concerns regarding drainage caused the tenant distress. I award $300 in general compensation for this breach.

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Failing to comply with the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1) of the RTA 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 of the RTA.)
Section 109 of the RTA provides 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 principle from the District Court decision of Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited (DC Wellington, CIV 2014-085-13, 27 August 2014) is that if there were multiple breaches of a particular section, then only one set of exemplary damages could be ordered for that breach.

Did the landlord commit the unlawful act intentionally?

The landlord of the premises did not attend the hearings. The agent attended on their behalf. It appears from the documentary evidence that the landlord was under the mistaken believe that because of difficulties associated with installing the drainage on the pergola and/or because the pergola did not require building consent, it did not need to comply with HHS – moisture ingress and draining.
Had the landlord obtained a Healthy Homes Report on the premises prior to the compliance date from a suitably qualified assessor, the issue with the pergola would have been identified. However, the landlord certified the premises as compliant themselves.
I accept this was not deliberate. I consider that the landlord, not being in the business of assessing premises for compliance with HHS, mistakenly believed that the HHS – moisture ingress and drainage standard was met.
However, it is well established that when determining if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. In T.M.T New Zealand Limited Trading as Strata Property Management v Kirk Liam Sweeney and Anne-mette Holmgard Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182, the landlord had failed to provide an insurance and healthy homes compliance statement as required under the RTA. The Court held that: The obligation to provide these documents are fundamental obligations on landlords of which it appears Mr Hu was not fully aware despite their being included in the Act since 2016 and 2019 respectively. Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequence for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.
The landlord’s defence for not investigating and remedying the concerns raised by the tenant that the premises did not comply with the HHS – draught stopping standard in a timely manner was that the tenant did not cooperate with their efforts to fix the issue. I have explained that as proper notice was not issued, this was not a defence.
The breaches of the HHS arose because of the landlord’s ignorance of the law. Therefore, I am satisfied that the unlawful acts were committed intentionally. Having regard to the landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the tenant, and the public interest, I consider it is just to make an award of exemplary damages. I award $1500 in exemplary damages for the breaches of section 45(1) of the RTA. Expenses claimed by the tenant:
The tenant’s claim for failing to reimburse expenses was for repairs to the door. The tenant has provided an invoice for rubbish bags, cockroach spray bombs and $80 to repair the lock on the rear door lock. The tenant says he wants the Tribunal to order reimbursement for the entire invoice.
The landlord said it is willing to pay the $80.00 but not the other sums. The landlord says the reason the other sums have not been paid is because the tenant did not respond to their request for additional information about the other sums on the invoice.
I order payment of $80 for repairs of the back door lock. I decline to consider the other claims as they were not raised by the tenant in the first hearing when the claims were listed. Filing fee:
While the tenant has had some success with the claim, I do not consider he has been substantially successful. For this reason, I have not ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310927 — Exemplary damages at 6 Foster Crescent, Snells Beach, Snells Beach 0920

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310927 — Exemplary damages at 6 Foster Crescent, Snells Beach, Snells Beach 0920

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

Did the landlord breach the HHS draught stopping standard?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Did the landlord commit the unlawful act intentionally?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

Did the landlord breach the HHS draught stopping standard?

Should exemplary damages be awarded?

Did the landlord commit the unlawful act intentionally?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.