What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5312880 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5312880?

Compensation: Failure to comply with…: $1,400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide Hea…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312880?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312880?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12789536-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5312880 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5312880?

Compensation: Failure to comply with…: $1,400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide Hea…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312880?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312880?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12789536-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

44A Main Road, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5312880 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5312880 — net $1,578.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to provide Healthy Homes Compliance statement	$150.00	Failure to provide Healthy Homes Compliance statement
Compensation: Failure to comply with Healthy Homes ventilation standards	$1,400.00	Failure to comply with Healthy Homes ventilation standards
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,578.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,578.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5312880 — net $1,578.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to provide Healthy Homes Compliance statement	$150.00	Failure to provide Healthy Homes Compliance statement
Compensation: Failure to comply with Healthy Homes ventilation standards	$1,400.00	Failure to comply with Healthy Homes ventilation standards
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,578.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,578.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Guava Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,578.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Mr Narayan representing the landlord. The tenant was also assisted by a representative.
This was a fixed term tenancy which started on 5 August 2023 and was due to expire on 5 November 2023. However, it rolled over into a periodic tenancy which ended following the tenant giving notice to terminate the tenancy by email dated 11 June 2024. While the tenant advised that she intended to vacate on 24 June 2024, I note that under section 51 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) in force at the time, the tenant was required to give 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy, which expired on 8 July 2024.
The tenant has filed an application for the following claims: a. Compensation for overpaid rent paid as a result of the landlord requiring rent in excess of the rent advertised for the premises in breach of section 22G RTA and exemplary damages for the breach; b. Exemplary damages for failing to give a receipt for the bond in breach of s19(1)and (2) RTA; c. Exemplary damages for failing to provide a Healthy Homes Compliance statement in breach of section 13A(1CA) and (1F) RTA; d. Exemplary damages for failing to comply with the Ventilation standards as required by s45(1)(bb) RTA and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS)
As explained in the hearing, there are time limits for bringing exemplary damages claims. Section 109 RTA provides that a claim for exemplary damages may not be made later than: a. 12 months after the termination of the tenancy in relation to an unlawful act to which section 19(2) or section 30(2) RTA applies; and b. 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act, in the case of any other unlawful act.
All the tenant’s claims were lodged on 24 July 2025, more than 12 months after the tenancy was terminated. Therefore, I cannot consider any of the claims for exemplary damages and they must be dismissed.
However, the Tribunal may consider whether compensation ought to be awarded for any breaches of the RTA.
Any party bringing a claim to the Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim. The Tenancy Tribunal applies a civil standard of proof, determining matters on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the tenant in this case must prove that it is more likely than not that her alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be supported by other acceptable evidence. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents such as emails, texts, and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden.

Did the landlord breach s22G RTA?

A landlord must not invite or encourage a prospective tenant or any other person to offer to pay an amount of rent that exceeds the amount of rent stated in the advertisement or offer. However, this does not prohibit a prospective tenant or other person from offering to pay an amount that exceeds the stated amount of rent. See section s 22G RTA.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord required her to pay rent for the premises that exceeded the amount of rent stated in the advertisement by $20/week. The landlord disputes that he required extra rent and says that the tenant offered him another $20/week to choose her as a tenant and allow her to keep a cat at the premises.
It is not disputed that the premises were advertised at $375/week but the landlord specified that no pets were allowed. The tenant viewed the premises on 30 July 2023 and advised that she was keen to secure them, as her current tenancy was ending in a week and she had nowhere to go. However, she had a cat she wished to keep at the premises. She explained that she keeps a cat for mental health reasons to provide emotional support. The landlord was not keen on a cat but asked her to put her case in writing. The tenant emailed the landlord that day with some background information; why she wanted the tenancy and permission to keep a cat; and provided assurances that she would be responsible for any pet damage.
There is a conflict of evidence regarding what happened next. The tenant alleges that the landlord contacted her offering the tenancy and inviting her to his house on 31 July 2023 to sign the tenancy agreement. He also advised her that he would discuss the cat with her in more detail. When she arrived, the landlord then told her that she would need to pay an extra $20/week rent for the cat. The landlord confirmed to the tenant that this extra money would be returned to her at the end of the tenancy if there was no pet damage. The tenant agreed and they signed the tenancy agreement. However, she says that he did not refund this money to her when the tenancy ended.
The landlord disputes the tenant’s version of events and says that after he received her email on 30 July, they had a verbal discussion, in which the tenant offered an extra $20/week for rent which he agreed to accept. He says that he approved the tenancy as a special case because of the urgency of the tenant’s situation and her explanation about needing her cat for health reasons. He was also swayed by the fact that her friend (who came to the viewing) was able to give a guarantee. He then invited her to sign the tenancy agreement at his house on 31 July. He did not agree to return the extra $20/week paid if there was no pet damage at the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy agreement prepared by the landlord and presented for signing had already been pre-printed to record rent of $375, bond of $1,580 (which is calculated at 4 x a weekly rent of $395—not the lower $375) and permission to keep one cat. During signing of the agreement, the landlord says he realised that the rent figure of $375 was a typo and it was amended by hand with the 7 printed over in pen to become a 9 so that the rent was $395. He says that this fits in with the pre-printed bond amount of $1,580, equivalent to 4 weeks’ rent.
There is no other written document recording who proposed the rent increase nor that the amount would be refunded at the end of the tenancy if there was no pet damage.
After carefully considering all the available evidence, I find that the tenant has not proved this claim against the landlord. There is a direct conflict of oral evidence by each of the parties. It is impossible for the Tribunal to decide which evidence should be preferred because there is insufficient supporting evidence to corroborate either party’s version. This is sometimes referred to as a “he said, she said” scenario. However, the onus is on the tenant to prove her claim and I find that there is insufficient evidence to corroborate her version of events to the balance of probabilities standard. For that reason, the claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to give a bond receipt?

When the tenant pays to the landlord any amount by way of bond, the landlord, as soon as practicable after receiving the payment, must give the tenant a written receipt showing the address of the premises to which the payment relates; and the amount and nature of the payment; and the date of the payment; and the name of the payer. See section 19(1)(a) RTA.
The tenant says that the landlord did not give a receipt for the bond.
In this case the landlord says he used a standard form tenancy agreement available from Tenancy Services. The standard form contains a section for recording receipt of the bond. The landlord believes that he usually completes the full agreement. However, the landlord was only able to produce pages 1,5 and 6 of the tenancy agreement which do not include the bond receipt section. The tenant also says that it was only those 3 pages that were produced by the landlord for signing and she was only given a copy of those pages after it was signed by both parties.
I gave the landlord an opportunity during the hearing to check his office records and to produce a copy of the original agreement and all pages completed. The landlord advised that no other documentation was available and he only has copies of the three pages of the agreement as produced in evidence by the tenant and by the landlord.
I am satisfied on the evidence, that the landlord did not complete a full copy of the standard form tenancy agreement which contains the bond receipt section and he failed to give the tenant a bond receipt as soon as practicable after payment. This is a breach of s19(1)(a) RTA.
I have considered whether the tenant ought to be compensated for the breach. It is a well accepted principle when awarding damages that, so far as money can do it, the injured party shall be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement. The primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.
I consider compensation is not justified in this case. That is because, evidence was provided that the landlord lodged the bond with the Bond Centre on 31 August 2023, within the prescribed period of 23 working days after payment was received. The Bond Centre sent letters to the parties notifying them of the bond lodgement in the tenant’s name. Therefore, I consider that there was no prejudice to the tenant nor reason for her to be concerned because she received assurance early on in the tenancy, and within the prescribed bond lodgement time period, that her bond had been received and was securely lodged with the Bond Centre.

Did the landlord fail to complete a Healthy Homes Compliance statement?

A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides information concerning compliance with the HHS. See sections 13A(1A),(1B),(1C) regarding insulation and subsections (1CA) and (1CB) regarding the remaining standards—moisture ingress and drainage, heating, draught-stopping and ventilation.
The landlord produced a compliance certificate concerning insulation, although it relates to the premises at 44 and 44A Main Road. However, the landlord was unable to supply a copy of any healthy homes compliance statement in relation to the remaining HHS standards as required. I am satisfied on the evidence that a compliance statement was not completed by the landlord and provided to the tenant as required which is a breach of 13A(1CA) RTA.
I consider that the tenant is entitled to some compensation for the breach. The introduction of the HHS has been a major and vital piece of legislation designed to improve the quality of rental homes, ensuring that they are warmer, dryer and promote better health outcomes for tenants. The purpose of an HHS compliance statement is to provide transparency for tenants regarding the condition of rental properties and their current level of compliance with HHS.
In this case the tenant says she asked for a copy of the statement on multiple occasions but the landlord did not send it to her. She never received any information as to the landlords compliance with HHS, except for insulation.
Having regard to all the circumstances, I award the tenant $150 compensation for the landlord’s failure to provide a compliance statement.

Did the landlord breach the HHS ventilation standard?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) RTA which requires compliance with the HHS. [The tenant/s]says that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard and seeks compensation for the breach.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. This rental was required to comply within 120 days of the commencement date. Therefore the last day for compliance was 3 December 2023.
The ventilation standard requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity and be vented to the exterior.
I accept on the evidence presented at the hearing, and as acknowledged by the landlord, that the rangehood in the kitchen does not vent to the outside and there is no extractor fan in the bathroom. These are both breaches of the HHS.
The tenants are entitled to compensation for the landlord’s failure to supply a compliant kitchen and bathroom extraction fan system.
The landlord suggests that there would have been little impact on the tenant because the kitchen and bathroom both have opening windows to ventilate the areas. However the fact that there are opening windows and doors in the areas is irrelevant. Strict compliance is required.
The landlord also says that he received advice from a healthy homes inspector prior to the tenancy starting that if there were windows in the areas, that would suffice but a fan may be required in future. I am not persuaded by this evidence and the landlord did not provide any statement from the inspector to that effect. When I asked the landlord if he had enquired about when fans would need to be provided he understood that he had until 1 July 2025 to comply. Again, I am not persuaded that an inspector with expertise in HHS would have given this advice which is plainly incorrect. The compliance dates for tenancies vary but the rules for private tenancies were as follows: a. Tenancies started or renewed between 1 July 2021 and 27 August 2022 had to comply with the HHS within 90 days of the tenancy starting; and, b. Tenancies started or renewed between 28 August 2022 and 2 March 2025 had to comply within 120 days; and c. From 1 July 2025, all private rentals had to comply with HHS.
I consider the landlord cannot plead confusion, lack of knowledge, or ignorance of the law. In TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl 1 , where the landlord claimed not to be fully aware of his obligations, the District Court held: 1 TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 “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 consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.”
Where a party fails to carry out a legal requirement because they are unaware of the particular obligation they have failed to perform, ignorance of the law is no defence. They are deemed to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional.
The tenant was paying for a home that was required to meet the HHS by 3 December 2023 but it did not. That is a loss of amenity which entitles her to compensation. For the 7-month period of the tenancy without a compliant kitchen and bathroom extractor fan, I award $1,400 which I consider justified.
As the tenant has substantially succeeded with her claims she is entitled to suppression of her name and identifying details and to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5312880 — Healthy homes at 44A Main Road, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5312880 — Healthy homes at 44A Main Road, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach s22G RTA?

Did the landlord fail to give a bond receipt?

Did the landlord fail to complete a Healthy Homes Compliance statement?

Did the landlord breach the HHS ventilation standard?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach s22G RTA?

Did the landlord fail to give a bond receipt?

Did the landlord fail to complete a Healthy Homes Compliance statement?

Did the landlord breach the HHS ventilation standard?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions