What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316138 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 5316138?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316138?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316138?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12822475-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316138 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 5316138?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316138?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316138?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12822475-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 11, 115 Brougham Street, Mount Victoria, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5316138 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat 11, 115 Brougham Street, Mount Victoria, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5316138 — Healthy homes | 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 5316138 — net $2,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Breach HHS	$2,000.00	Breach HHS
Exemplary damages: Tenancy agreement breach	$500.00	Tenancy agreement breach
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,528.00

Claims and awards for application 5316138 — net $2,528.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages: Breach HHS

Amount: $2,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach HHS

Exemplary damages: Tenancy agreement breach

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Tenancy agreement breach

Filing fee reimbursement

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

Net award

Tenant $2,528.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $2,528.00

Dismissed claims

Compensation — Did the tenancy agreement provide the required information?
Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages Filing Fee Compensation

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Robert Paul Wright And Ngaire Jane Wright As Trustees For Quayside Property Trust And Bayside Family Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $2,528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by [The tenant’s representative] from [Community Law]. The landlord was represented by Mr Matthew Wright.
The tenant lived in a boarding house owned by the Trust. He had lived there on and off since January 2021. The landlord gave him a 28 day notice to end the latest boarding house tenancy. The tenant is concerned that notice was retaliatory because told the landlord about broken guttering and mould. The tenant has claimed exemplary damages and compensation for breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and for the notice. The claims for maintenance were withdrawn at the hearing. The questions I have to decide include: • Was there a breach of the HHS? • Did the tenancy agreement provide the required information? • Should I make an order restraining the landlord? • Was the notice retaliatory? • How many of the boarding house tenancies should I consider?

Was there a breach of the HHS?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard. This 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.
All boarding houses had to comply with the HHS by 1 July 2021. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) RTA.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I was provided with photos showing the broken and rusty gutters and a broken downpipe. I accept the system would not have effectively drained rain water. The downpipe emptied against the side of the building. It looks like someone attempted a fix with a rigging to divert rain water away for the building. The tenant said he had years of experience in the building trade and the building would have “wet feet” as a result of the broken gutters and pipes. He worried the poor drainage was causing mould to grow inside the boarding house. The tenant raised his concerns with the landlord at the start of February 2025 and was told a repair “was on the list”.
The tenant shared his concerns with the Wellington City Council (WCC), who visited the boarding house with an investigator from the Tenancy Compliance Investigation Team. A joint visit was conducted on 17 February 2025.
The landlord replied that the building is over 100 years old and the landlord has carried out significant improvements. A new roof, new gutters and down pipes, and new exterior painting were the only big jobs left in February. The landlord said maintenance is carried out all the time when it is brought to the landlord’s attention. The building has a current building warrant of fitness issued by the WCC. He said the first time the tenant raised his concerns about the drainage was in February 2025. He said there was new guttering in the part of the building where the tenant had his room. The landlord acknowledged the compliance investigator’s advice the drainage did not meet the HHS. New roofing and a new drainage system have been installed since February.
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act by not complying with the moisture ingress and drainage standard. 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord said it did not act intentionally because it did not know it had to have an effective drainage system to comply with the HHS. I am not persuaded by this submission because the landlord has had 30 years experience and managed hundreds of properties. The requirement for boarding houses to comply has been in place since 2021. It seems most likely to me the landlord knew about the requirement but prioritised other repairs over the HHS compliance.
The effect for the tenant was stress when he found out the building did not comply. I find that the location of the tenant’s room is not relevant because his concern that the common areas he used were not healthy or safe is persuasive. It is in tenants’ interests that boarding houses comply with HHS because unhealthy housing is burdensome on society.
There is public interest that landlords pay exemplary damages to encourage compliance. I find the landlord should pay $2000, which is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any previous orders against the landlord.
The tenant has also claimed compensation for stress and emotional harm. I am not persuaded there has been stress and emotional harm during the tenancy because of the breach of the drainage standard. The tenant’s evidence shows he only brought the HHS breach to the landlord’s attention in February. It seems likely his previous tenancies at the boarding house were not impacted by the breach because he kept returning. I accept there was tension between the parties in February but I am not persuaded there was a loss to the tenant because of the HHS breach. The claim for compensation is dismissed.

Did the tenancy agreement provide the required information?

The tenant has claimed there was a breach of the requirement to include a signed HHS statement in the tenancy agreement. Under s 13A(1CA) RTA landlords must include a signed statement that the landlord will comply with the HHS as required and include the information prescribed by regulations.
Section 13A(1F) RTA provides that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they fail to include a healthy homes statement in the tenancy agreement or if the statement includes anything that the landlord knows to be false or misleading. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $900 for knowingly providing false or misleading information.
The parties signed a one-page tenancy agreement. The healthy homes information is less than is required by the RTA and the HHS regulations. There is no information about the drainage. The landlord’s submission this was an omission rather an intentional decision to withhold information is not persuasive. It seems most likely to me there was a deliberate inclusion of information about the standards met and an intentional exclusion of the drainage standard. I find the landlord committed the unlawful act of providing information that was misleading.
The same considerations for exemplary damages apply. I find the landlord acted intentionally. The effect for tenant was stress. Tenants should know the HHS compliance before they rent tenancy premises so they can make informed decisions. There is public interest in landlords paying a penalty when they breach the RTA. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $500. I am not aware of any previous orders but there are at least two inadequate tenancy agreements with this tenant, which I find to be an aggravating factor.
The tenant has claimed compensation for stress and emotional harm for this breach as well. I am not persuaded there has been stress and emotional harm during the tenancy because of this breach. The claim for compensation is dismissed.

Should I make an order restraining the landlord?

The tenant submitted that the breaches were serious and repeated and it would be appropriate to make a restraining order. I am not persuaded by this because the landlord said the boarding house now complies with HHS, and he has spoken with the compliance investigator about the tenancy agreement. It seems most likely to me the landlord will make sure the tenancy agreements comply with the RTA as well. I am persuaded that the landlord does not need a restraining order to comply with the RTA. This claim is dismissed.

Was the notice retaliatory?

The tenant brought the drainage issues and mould to the attention of the landlord’s representative on 5 February 2025. They talked in the car park. The tenant followed up with an email the next day and mentioned the ineffective gutters and mould. On 11 February the landlord gave the tenant a 28 day notice to end the tenancy. The tenant claims the notice was retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500. See section 54 and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said the notice was given because of the tenant’s behaviour in the car park. He said the tenant was agitated, talking loudly, incoherent, and threatening. The tenant replied that he did raise his voice and talk over the representative because he was frustrated, but he did not threaten him. The representative said he was very concerned about his safety so he ended the tenancy.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I find the landlord’s recollection of the carpark meeting to be credible. I am persuaded this altercation was the reason for giving the notice to terminate the tenancy. The notice is one the landlord was allowed to give under the RTA. I find tenant has not proved the notice was retaliatory and this claim is dismissed.

How many of the boarding house tenancies should I consider?

The tenant submitted that all his boarding house tenancies should be considered, and not just the latest tenancy from April 2024 – February 2025. This would allow a greater award of compensation. As it turns out the claim for maintenance was withdrawn and I have dismissed the claims for compensation for emotional harm.
I find the only relevant tenancy for the HHS breach was the current one because the tenant only has photos of the gutters and downpipe from this year. His recollection of hearing water overflowing and having to wear ear plugs while living in other rooms is not persuasive. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
There is an application for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. See section 95A RTA.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because he is the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords are ordered to pay exemplary damages.

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 5316138 — net $2,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Breach HHS	$2,000.00	Breach HHS
Exemplary damages: Tenancy agreement breach	$500.00	Tenancy agreement breach
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,528.00

Claims and awards for application 5316138 — net $2,528.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages: Breach HHS

Amount: $2,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Breach HHS

Exemplary damages: Tenancy agreement breach

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Tenancy agreement breach

Filing fee reimbursement

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

Net award

Tenant $2,528.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $2,528.00

Dismissed claims

Compensation — Did the tenancy agreement provide the required information?
Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages Filing Fee Compensation

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Robert Paul Wright And Ngaire Jane Wright As Trustees For Quayside Property Trust And Bayside Family Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $2,528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by [The tenant’s representative] from [Community Law]. The landlord was represented by Mr Matthew Wright.
The tenant lived in a boarding house owned by the Trust. He had lived there on and off since January 2021. The landlord gave him a 28 day notice to end the latest boarding house tenancy. The tenant is concerned that notice was retaliatory because told the landlord about broken guttering and mould. The tenant has claimed exemplary damages and compensation for breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and for the notice. The claims for maintenance were withdrawn at the hearing. The questions I have to decide include: • Was there a breach of the HHS? • Did the tenancy agreement provide the required information? • Should I make an order restraining the landlord? • Was the notice retaliatory? • How many of the boarding house tenancies should I consider?

Was there a breach of the HHS?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard. This 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.
All boarding houses had to comply with the HHS by 1 July 2021. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) RTA.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I was provided with photos showing the broken and rusty gutters and a broken downpipe. I accept the system would not have effectively drained rain water. The downpipe emptied against the side of the building. It looks like someone attempted a fix with a rigging to divert rain water away for the building. The tenant said he had years of experience in the building trade and the building would have “wet feet” as a result of the broken gutters and pipes. He worried the poor drainage was causing mould to grow inside the boarding house. The tenant raised his concerns with the landlord at the start of February 2025 and was told a repair “was on the list”.
The tenant shared his concerns with the Wellington City Council (WCC), who visited the boarding house with an investigator from the Tenancy Compliance Investigation Team. A joint visit was conducted on 17 February 2025.
The landlord replied that the building is over 100 years old and the landlord has carried out significant improvements. A new roof, new gutters and down pipes, and new exterior painting were the only big jobs left in February. The landlord said maintenance is carried out all the time when it is brought to the landlord’s attention. The building has a current building warrant of fitness issued by the WCC. He said the first time the tenant raised his concerns about the drainage was in February 2025. He said there was new guttering in the part of the building where the tenant had his room. The landlord acknowledged the compliance investigator’s advice the drainage did not meet the HHS. New roofing and a new drainage system have been installed since February.
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act by not complying with the moisture ingress and drainage standard. 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord said it did not act intentionally because it did not know it had to have an effective drainage system to comply with the HHS. I am not persuaded by this submission because the landlord has had 30 years experience and managed hundreds of properties. The requirement for boarding houses to comply has been in place since 2021. It seems most likely to me the landlord knew about the requirement but prioritised other repairs over the HHS compliance.
The effect for the tenant was stress when he found out the building did not comply. I find that the location of the tenant’s room is not relevant because his concern that the common areas he used were not healthy or safe is persuasive. It is in tenants’ interests that boarding houses comply with HHS because unhealthy housing is burdensome on society.
There is public interest that landlords pay exemplary damages to encourage compliance. I find the landlord should pay $2000, which is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any previous orders against the landlord.
The tenant has also claimed compensation for stress and emotional harm. I am not persuaded there has been stress and emotional harm during the tenancy because of the breach of the drainage standard. The tenant’s evidence shows he only brought the HHS breach to the landlord’s attention in February. It seems likely his previous tenancies at the boarding house were not impacted by the breach because he kept returning. I accept there was tension between the parties in February but I am not persuaded there was a loss to the tenant because of the HHS breach. The claim for compensation is dismissed.

Did the tenancy agreement provide the required information?

The tenant has claimed there was a breach of the requirement to include a signed HHS statement in the tenancy agreement. Under s 13A(1CA) RTA landlords must include a signed statement that the landlord will comply with the HHS as required and include the information prescribed by regulations.
Section 13A(1F) RTA provides that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they fail to include a healthy homes statement in the tenancy agreement or if the statement includes anything that the landlord knows to be false or misleading. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $900 for knowingly providing false or misleading information.
The parties signed a one-page tenancy agreement. The healthy homes information is less than is required by the RTA and the HHS regulations. There is no information about the drainage. The landlord’s submission this was an omission rather an intentional decision to withhold information is not persuasive. It seems most likely to me there was a deliberate inclusion of information about the standards met and an intentional exclusion of the drainage standard. I find the landlord committed the unlawful act of providing information that was misleading.
The same considerations for exemplary damages apply. I find the landlord acted intentionally. The effect for tenant was stress. Tenants should know the HHS compliance before they rent tenancy premises so they can make informed decisions. There is public interest in landlords paying a penalty when they breach the RTA. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $500. I am not aware of any previous orders but there are at least two inadequate tenancy agreements with this tenant, which I find to be an aggravating factor.
The tenant has claimed compensation for stress and emotional harm for this breach as well. I am not persuaded there has been stress and emotional harm during the tenancy because of this breach. The claim for compensation is dismissed.

Should I make an order restraining the landlord?

The tenant submitted that the breaches were serious and repeated and it would be appropriate to make a restraining order. I am not persuaded by this because the landlord said the boarding house now complies with HHS, and he has spoken with the compliance investigator about the tenancy agreement. It seems most likely to me the landlord will make sure the tenancy agreements comply with the RTA as well. I am persuaded that the landlord does not need a restraining order to comply with the RTA. This claim is dismissed.

Was the notice retaliatory?

The tenant brought the drainage issues and mould to the attention of the landlord’s representative on 5 February 2025. They talked in the car park. The tenant followed up with an email the next day and mentioned the ineffective gutters and mould. On 11 February the landlord gave the tenant a 28 day notice to end the tenancy. The tenant claims the notice was retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500. See section 54 and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said the notice was given because of the tenant’s behaviour in the car park. He said the tenant was agitated, talking loudly, incoherent, and threatening. The tenant replied that he did raise his voice and talk over the representative because he was frustrated, but he did not threaten him. The representative said he was very concerned about his safety so he ended the tenancy.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I find the landlord’s recollection of the carpark meeting to be credible. I am persuaded this altercation was the reason for giving the notice to terminate the tenancy. The notice is one the landlord was allowed to give under the RTA. I find tenant has not proved the notice was retaliatory and this claim is dismissed.

How many of the boarding house tenancies should I consider?

The tenant submitted that all his boarding house tenancies should be considered, and not just the latest tenancy from April 2024 – February 2025. This would allow a greater award of compensation. As it turns out the claim for maintenance was withdrawn and I have dismissed the claims for compensation for emotional harm.
I find the only relevant tenancy for the HHS breach was the current one because the tenant only has photos of the gutters and downpipe from this year. His recollection of hearing water overflowing and having to wear ear plugs while living in other rooms is not persuasive. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
There is an application for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. See section 95A RTA.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because he is the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords are ordered to pay exemplary damages.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5316138 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 11, 115 Brougham Street, Mount Victoria,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5316138 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 11, 115 Brougham Street, Mount Victoria,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach of the HHS?

Did the tenancy agreement provide the required information?

Should I make an order restraining the landlord?

Was the notice retaliatory?

How many of the boarding house tenancies should I consider?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach of the HHS?

Did the tenancy agreement provide the required information?

Should I make an order restraining the landlord?

Was the notice retaliatory?

How many of the boarding house tenancies should I consider?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions